There are some things I'll never understand.

http://www.realcities.com/multimedia/natio...ran_in_Iraq.pdf

Anyone out there with any knowledge of the procurement system that could comment on this.

I know nothing about procurement.

As to the pictures in the PDF file, NBC has reported that General Pace testified to a Congressional committee that the EFPs were manufactured in Iran but there was no evidence that they were provided to insurgents by Iran. (Apparently there is a a huge international arms market: manufacture, sell, trade, trade again, sell again, etc.)

Yep, I imagine there is a huge demand worldwide for items that will penetrate the side of a Bradley, eh?

When the UNSCOM inspectors left before the BushWar, they listed the al-qaqqa munitions dump as containing 380 metric tons of RDX high explosive. They warned urgently that it be secured by the army if they invaded.

But they had other priorities - - like the ministry of oil - - which was quite brilliantly secured.

And they did eventually get over to al-qaqqa about a month later. But they found that the door was open, and it was empty.

Just because BushCo says the IEDs come from Iran doesn't make it so. I understand that BushCo has been known to...

LIE

bush lie ? No oxymoron there.

Procurement in Iraq of replacement equipment on that scale..... was and is not in the budget. nor do we have at our disposal the Rosey the Rivetor to build the equipment fast enough.

The more armor on those trucks the more wear;......e.g. without the additional side armor we were still burning through tires on a monthly basis.

It would seem that the Iran's have a well tuned procurement system of their own... that should be stopped at the boarder. Human intelligence is key to cutting this off.

There are and were penty of TTP's (procedures and tactics) to avoid the "rocks" (some of which ran contrary to tactics to protect you from other threats)....

On the day the Angels beckons you, there is little you can do.

I can understand your synisym. How ever the arms coming from Iran are REAL... whether at the beheast of there leadership or through unofficial channels. It needs to be dealt with through a combination of strategies. Invading the country NOT among them.

Iraqi insurgents using Austrian rifles from Iran
By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 11:55am GMT 13/02/2007



Audio: Revelation makes US action against Iran more likely, says Thomas Harding
Austrian sniper rifles that were exported to Iran have been discovered in the hands of Iraqi terrorists, The Daily Telegraph has learned.

More than 100 of the.50 calibre weapons, capable of penetrating body armour, have been discovered by American troops during raids.


The Steyr HS50 is a long range, high precision rifle
The guns were part of a shipment of 800 rifles that the Austrian company, Steyr-Mannlicher, exported legally to Iran last year.

The sale was condemned in Washington and London because officials were worried that the weapons would be used by insurgents against British and American troops.

Within 45 days of the first HS50 Steyr Mannlicher rifles arriving in Iran, an American officer in an armoured vehicle was shot dead by an Iraqi insurgent using the weapon.

Over the last six months American forces have found small caches of the £10,000 rifles but in the last 24 hours a raid in Baghdad brought the total to more than 100, US defence sources reported.

The find is the latest in a series of discoveries that indicate that Teheran is providing support to Iraq's Shia insurgents.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, yesterday denied that Iran had supplied weapons to Iraqi insurgents. But on Sunday US officials in Baghdad displayed a range of weapons they claimed had originated in Iran.

They said 170 American and British soldiers had been killed by such weapons.

The discovery of the sniper rifles will further encourage those in Washington who want to see Iran's uranium-enriching facilities destroyed before a nuclear weapon is produced.

The Foreign Office expressed "serious concerns" over the sale of the rifles last year and Britain protested to the Austrian government.

A Foreign Office spokesman said last night: "Although we did make our worries known the sale unfortunately went ahead and now the potential that these weapons could fall into the wrong hands appears to have happened."

The rifle can pierce all body armour from up to a mile and penetrate armoured Humvee troop carriers.

It is highly accurate and fires a round called an armour piercing incendiary, a bullet that the Iranians manufacture.

The National Iranian Police Organisation bought the rifles allegedly to use them against drug smugglers in an £8 million order placed with Steyr in 2005.

The company was given permission to export them by the Austrian government, which is not a Nato member.


Now folks, this is a direct link between the Government of Iran and the death of American Soldiers and Marines.

I have but one question. When do the air strikes begin?

Hopefully never. We just need to get our troops out of harms way.

Not until the job is done.

What is the "job", and when is it "done"?

Jingoism isn't foreign policy, it's cowboy diplomacy and it gets our guys killed. No offense intended.

Everything else you've said above is spot on, no complaints here.

I just wanted to offer ten cyberbucks to someone that can tell me who was in charge of human intelligence networks inside Iran until... well, that would give it away.

If the link between Iran and the people killing our troops is so clear cut, why can't Tony Snow explain it to the press, he's failed to do so repeatedly. It sounds like the same old story, just change the "q" for "n" at the end of the country.

If the premise is that Iran is involved in this war now, then the job can never "be done". Unless you are suggesting that the nuclear option be used.
And then, pray tell, will the world be ?

Not to derail the conversation but when I posted this topic what I was looking for was something along the lines of this response from 1SGT White. I know there is disagreement about who supplying the weapons and whether we should be there at all so my hope was that we could discuss what seems to be a far bigger issue to me and one on which they would be general agreement. We do have troops over there and I was somewhat taken aback by the equipment shortage and was looking for an explanation. So no money but even if there were it doesn't sound like adding armor is a solution either since the vehicle wasn't built for the purposes it's been used for and there isn't a replacement vehicle. No manufacturing facilities so even if you wanted to you couldn't gear up.

1Sgt White, are the rocks that you are referring to the gray cement like things with the little glass eye?

I really am going now, my angels are calling me - and if I don't hurry I'll miss my plane.

I heard that the explosive devices the white house claim to be from IRAN are actually Russian and have one part that says made in Taiwan. I am not trying to be funny.\

I did find this business magazine that shows federal contracts and budget for 2008 in regard to procurement. I guess the best place to go is to the people who will contract.


Defense Industry Daily
(military purchasing news)
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/0...udget/index.php

The same job as it's been for the past three years Noonan. Get an Iraqi government up and capable of sustaining it's self. The jingoism is to keep acting like you don't know what the job is when the answer has never changed

That's entirely possible. But like the Steyr sniper rifle recovered in Iraq being used to kill Americans with the item just might have a serial number which can be associated with who purchased the item. As in the case of the sniper rifle the purchaser was the government of Iran.

Let's suppose any one of y'all went down to your local Walmart and purchased a new deer rifle. If your state is like Texas they require some form of identification in order to run a background check to make sure you ain't a lunatic or a felon. Now let's suppose that rifle turns up outside your local school where somebody had been sniping at the school buses as they deliver the little kiddies. The police pick that rifle up as evidence that somebody had been doing wrong. I bet they might contact the manufacturer to see which retailer had got that rifle then I bet the police would check with that retailer to see who the end user was. I hope you people are following what I'm saying.

Now, who wants to take bets on who's house the SWAT team shows up around?

Not unless you've got combat forces in Iraq.



Ain't that the OD truth.



I think he's asking for an ETA.

I'm just hoping than now al-Sadr is the latest enemy leader to "get away", that
he's not setting up new procurement in Iran for the next round of innovations.

marine have you heard what the plans are for the troop surge
in Iraq Baghdad? I heard the troops are to spend all their time in the area that they are patrolling day and night they are going to set up compounds and stay with the Iraq police.
this don't sound good

Nope, no one is saying a thing. I suspect they believe congress is fixing to screw them over so the troops will just keep their mouths shut about it and try to do what they are trained to do.

What the extra people were being button holed for originally is to train Iraqis so they can do the scut work. God only knows what's the final disposition or what they are going to end up doing.

I've been hearing for two years Iran is providing the technicians and the high quality booby traps. I think it's absolutely amazing that the MSM is just now picking up this story, it's something we've known about for at least two if not three years.

My opinion is still the same; if congress isn't going to let them finish their job bring them home now. To do anything else is screwing over the people there.

No, I'd just like some details. For instance, if you wanted to build a wall around Iraq and flood everyone nut that lived there - what kind of fence would you use, who would build it and in what time frame, and where would all the water come from? Who would be responsible for sorting the nuts from non-nuts before the flooding began? Who would be responsible for repairing the flood damage and burying the bodies afterwards? How would you determine where people would live afterwards and who got what territory? How would you stop the nuts from leaving once the flooding started?

I could go on, but if you look at every question I asked, they are very real concerns we would need answered before turning the spigots on. They can also be very easily rewritten to our real world situation. Those questions were never answered beyond "being greeted as liberators" with "flowers" where the reconstruction would "pay for itself".

If we sent over a bunch of people picked simply because they support overturning Roe or were big campaign workers for the Bush campaign, I guarantee you that wall wouldn't hold the water you've prescribed to flush away your problem (which never existed before we sent our troops there in the first place).

In other words, I really don't think you've answered the question, nor has anyone in the Bush White House. Every time someone shows enough cajones to answer, they're retired or fired.

How about hoping DC has the guts to get their butts home in one piece ASAP? Instead of doing what they are not trained to do: police work, keeping the peace in a war zone and nation building.


The plan I've been hearing for at least a month now (sorry, can provide sources at the moment) is that they are not going to be counting on the Iraqi police/army this time around and will not be accountable or directed by the Iraqi government. This caused innumerable problems the last time around, and if we're stuck trying to pacify Baghdad, it seems to be the best way to do it. Short of saying to the Iraqis "it's your turn, we'll watch from base this time" the best way to 'git 'er done' is to do the job right, yourself and then get out.

Well there is a news flash..... WHO would have QUESSED that we would have to DO NATION BUILDING? You see this come up over and over again historically.... Vietnam, Somali, Haiti.... and now in countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) that we purposely invaded.......wow that really blind sided.... um well... our elected officials, news media, John Q Coachpotato

Pols and Generals don't like it because it's messy, expensive and long (in the 2 year cycle of elections) and doesn't fit on the resume so nicely.

Much better and easier to go in kick ass and land on a carrier... done end of story.

EVERY SINGLE POLITICAN that VOTED for ACTION against IRAQ should have known we'd be engaged for the next ten to fifteen years... If the did not... well then they don't deserve my vote nor personal respect and could probably benefit from a history lesson or two.

Little glass eye.. very observant redbird! I was supprized to see that presentation on an open forum!.....

Yes... HMMV's are stretched to the max given the heat of the environment, the additional weight and rough terrain.

They also stick out like a sore thumb on the open road..... easy to spot them coming from miles away. The most dangerious activity is and was moving from one local to the next... I always preffered boot tread to tire tread... but it's not always an option given the mission.

Other equipment like headsets (Bose) in the vehicles, radios, bumber kits for the HMMVs other lectronic gadgetry and field computers (panasonic toughbooks) were tough to come by... Why I'm not sure.... since we were able to obtain some of this stuff from catelogs many months before we could get it from the Army Procurement system.

Generally that's a task we'd leave to God, or as the case may be Allah.

Ms Plame was actually responsible for finding IRAQI sources that would or could verify the exisitance of WMD in IRAQ.

That fact that she or anyone in that position was "outed" does little to help collection activities.... generally; but I don't see a direct connection.

Just to add to the Pre-War Pollyannism at the Pentagon: (brought to you by the PowerPoint RANGERS of the five sided Donut)


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/washingt...artner=homepage

A Prewar Slide Show Cast Iraq in Rosy Hues
E-MailPrint Reprints Save Share
DiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink

By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: February 15, 2007
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 — When Gen. Tommy R. Franks and his top officers gathered in August 2002 to review an invasion plan for Iraq, it reflected a decidedly upbeat vision of what the country would look like four years after Saddam Hussein was ousted from power.

A broadly representative Iraqi government would be in place. The Iraqi Army would be working to keep the peace. And the United States would have as few as 5,000 troops in the country.

Military slides obtained by the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act outline the command’s PowerPoint projection of the stable, pro-American and democratic Iraq that was to be.

The general optimism and some details of General Franks’s planning session have been disclosed in the copious postwar literature. But the slides from the once classified briefing provide a firsthand look at how far the violent reality of Iraq today has deviated from assumptions that once laid the basis for an exercise in pre-emptive war.

The archive, an independent research institute at George Washington University, has posted the slides on its Web site, www.nsarchive.org.

August 2002 was an important time for developing the strategy. President Bush had yet to go to the United Nations to declare Saddam Hussein’s supposed weapons programs a menace to international security, but the war planning was well under way. The tumultuous upheaval that would follow the toppling of the Hussein government was known antiseptically in planning sessions as “Phase IV.” As is clear from the slides, it was the least defined part of the strategy.

General Franks had told his officers that it was his supposition that the State Department would have the primary responsibility for rebuilding Iraq’s political institutions.

“D.O.S. will promote creation of a broad-based, credible provisional government — prior to D-Day,” noted a slide on “key planning assumptions.” That was military jargon for the notion that the Department of State would assemble a viable Iraqi governing coalition before the invasion even began.

“It was a way of forcing the discussion, to get clarity of how we and State were going to deal with the governance issue,” Col. John Agoglia, a Central Command planner at the time, said in an interview.

As it turned out, it was months before the command’s planners began to receive some of the clarification they were hoping for. The Bush administration put aside the idea of establishing a prewar provisional government for fear it would marginalize Iraqi leaders who had not gone into exile. Colonel Agoglia said he did not begin to get a sense of what the postwar arrangements would be until Jay Garner, a retired three-star general, was tapped by the Bush administration in January 2003 to serve as the first civilian administrator in postwar Iraq.

Another assumption spelled out in the PowerPoint presentation was that “co-opted” Iraqi Army units would heed the American appeals to stay in their garrisons and later help United States to secure the country.

Based on this and other hopeful suppositions, the command’s planners projected what the American occupation of Iraq might look like. After the main fighting was over, there was to be a two- to three-month “stabilization” phase, then an 18- to 24-month “recovery” phase.

That was to be followed by a 12- to 18-month “transition” phase. At the end of this stage — 32 to 45 months after the invasion began — it was projected that the United States would have only 5,000 troops in Iraq.

Now, those projections seem startlingly unrealistic given the current troop buildup, in which the United States currently has about 132,000 troops in Iraq and is adding about 20,000 more. But the projections, former military planners say, were intended to send the message to civilian policy makers that the invasion of Iraq would be a multiyear proposition, not an easy in-and-out war.

As it turned out, the assumptions on Iraqi and American forces were quickly overturned, partly as a result of new American policy decisions. Instead of staying in garrisons, many of the Iraqi soldiers fled after the war began. Senior American commanders hoped to quickly recall the Iraqi troops to duty anyway, but that option vanished in May 2003 when L. Paul Bremer III, Mr. Garner’s successor, issued an edict formally disbanding the Iraqi Army.

The message that the United States should gird itself for a substantial multiyear occupation seemed to be superseded when General Franks issued new guidance to his commanders a week after the fall of Baghdad on April 9 that they should be prepared to reduce the American troops in Iraq to a little more than a division by September 2003 — some 30,000 troops.

A series of ad hoc decisions and strategy changes followed as the insurgency grew and security deteriorated. A new military plan is now being put into effect, which the White House asserts may yet salvage a positive outcome. Almost four years after the invasion, however, the “stable democratic Iraqi government” the United States once hoped for seems to exist only in the command’s old planning slides.

Just to add to the Pre-War Pollyannism at the Pentagon: (brought to you by the PowerPoint RANGERS of the five sided Donut)


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/washingt...artner=homepage

A Prewar Slide Show Cast Iraq in Rosy Hues
E-MailPrint Reprints Save Share
DiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink

By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: February 15, 2007
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 — When Gen. Tommy R. Franks and his top officers gathered in August 2002 to review an invasion plan for Iraq, it reflected a decidedly upbeat vision of what the country would look like four years after Saddam Hussein was ousted from power.

A broadly representative Iraqi government would be in place. The Iraqi Army would be working to keep the peace. And the United States would have as few as 5,000 troops in the country.

Military slides obtained by the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act outline the command’s PowerPoint projection of the stable, pro-American and democratic Iraq that was to be.

The general optimism and some details of General Franks’s planning session have been disclosed in the copious postwar literature. But the slides from the once classified briefing provide a firsthand look at how far the violent reality of Iraq today has deviated from assumptions that once laid the basis for an exercise in pre-emptive war.

The archive, an independent research institute at George Washington University, has posted the slides on its Web site, www.nsarchive.org.

August 2002 was an important time for developing the strategy. President Bush had yet to go to the United Nations to declare Saddam Hussein’s supposed weapons programs a menace to international security, but the war planning was well under way. The tumultuous upheaval that would follow the toppling of the Hussein government was known antiseptically in planning sessions as “Phase IV.” As is clear from the slides, it was the least defined part of the strategy.

General Franks had told his officers that it was his supposition that the State Department would have the primary responsibility for rebuilding Iraq’s political institutions.

“D.O.S. will promote creation of a broad-based, credible provisional government — prior to D-Day,” noted a slide on “key planning assumptions.” That was military jargon for the notion that the Department of State would assemble a viable Iraqi governing coalition before the invasion even began.

“It was a way of forcing the discussion, to get clarity of how we and State were going to deal with the governance issue,” Col. John Agoglia, a Central Command planner at the time, said in an interview.

As it turned out, it was months before the command’s planners began to receive some of the clarification they were hoping for. The Bush administration put aside the idea of establishing a prewar provisional government for fear it would marginalize Iraqi leaders who had not gone into exile. Colonel Agoglia said he did not begin to get a sense of what the postwar arrangements would be until Jay Garner, a retired three-star general, was tapped by the Bush administration in January 2003 to serve as the first civilian administrator in postwar Iraq.

Another assumption spelled out in the PowerPoint presentation was that “co-opted” Iraqi Army units would heed the American appeals to stay in their garrisons and later help United States to secure the country.

Based on this and other hopeful suppositions, the command’s planners projected what the American occupation of Iraq might look like. After the main fighting was over, there was to be a two- to three-month “stabilization” phase, then an 18- to 24-month “recovery” phase.

That was to be followed by a 12- to 18-month “transition” phase. At the end of this stage — 32 to 45 months after the invasion began — it was projected that the United States would have only 5,000 troops in Iraq.

Now, those projections seem startlingly unrealistic given the current troop buildup, in which the United States currently has about 132,000 troops in Iraq and is adding about 20,000 more. But the projections, former military planners say, were intended to send the message to civilian policy makers that the invasion of Iraq would be a multiyear proposition, not an easy in-and-out war.

As it turned out, the assumptions on Iraqi and American forces were quickly overturned, partly as a result of new American policy decisions. Instead of staying in garrisons, many of the Iraqi soldiers fled after the war began. Senior American commanders hoped to quickly recall the Iraqi troops to duty anyway, but that option vanished in May 2003 when L. Paul Bremer III, Mr. Garner’s successor, issued an edict formally disbanding the Iraqi Army.

The message that the United States should gird itself for a substantial multiyear occupation seemed to be superseded when General Franks issued new guidance to his commanders a week after the fall of Baghdad on April 9 that they should be prepared to reduce the American troops in Iraq to a little more than a division by September 2003 — some 30,000 troops.

A series of ad hoc decisions and strategy changes followed as the insurgency grew and security deteriorated. A new military plan is now being put into effect, which the White House asserts may yet salvage a positive outcome. Almost four years after the invasion, however, the “stable democratic Iraqi government” the United States once hoped for seems to exist only in the command’s old planning slides.

Reading through this thread it became apparent that most of you have forgotten the very long history of Iran and Iraq’s adversarial relationship. The idea of some Iranian stealthily taking arms into Iraq is as old as the middle east it’s self. Why are so many having so much trouble understanding this. Iranian weapons in Iraq is being talked about as if it were a new phenomenon, when the reality hasn’t changed for these people in 1500 years. How many wars have these two fought, or do you think they were playing chess and the media got it wrong. Maybe some believe the Iranian conundrum is worthy of an attack on Iran by the USA, I say an attack would be a grave mistake on a multitude of levels and it would not be justified.

Do we really know the origin?

Published on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
Barbarians at Both Sides of the Gate
And how come a grenade is dated "5-31-2006?"
by Michael Winship

Speaking with a journalist friend over the weekend, just back from his sixth or seventh trip to Iraq, my mind flashed to a moment in James Goldman's play and movie "The Lion in Winter."

The English King Henry II's sons and wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, are scheming against the monarch and plotting against each other. One of the boys, Prince John (whose perfidy as king three decades later will lead to the Magna Carta) is accosted by his brother Richard (as in "the Lionhearted"). "He's got a knife!" John shouts.

"Of course he has a knife," Eleanor replies. "He always has a knife. We all have knives. It's 1183 and we're barbarians!"

Nearly eight and a half centuries later, we're still barbarians, and I'm not just talking about the rabid Islamic extremists who make life miserable for the rest of us, including their fellow Muslims.

Okay, there are some good signs. My friend told me about being in a US military hospital when a badly wounded Sunni insurgent was brought in, a guy who had been shot while planting a roadside bomb. Thirty units of blood were given him but he still was fading fast. A call for donors went out and within minutes there was a line of GI's ready to give. A life's a life, they said.

On the other hand, my friend and colleague said he has never seen as much gore and carnage as he did on this trip. The situation continues to deteriorate and Afghanistan is rapidly going down the tubes, too, says he. That, in turn, is critically threatening the stability of Pakistan. And so on and so on and so on...

Our own barbarism manifests itself in our continuing ignorance of the Middle East, despite our many years bogged down there. Nowhere is that lack of knowledge more manifest than in our seeming, even willful inability to make sense of the intramural fighting within the Islamic religion that's so key to understanding what's going on there.

The split between Sunni and Shiite Muslims dates back four hundred years before Eleanor of Aquitaine was verbally going medieval on her offspring, and has to do with the line of succession from the prophet Mohammed. Over the centuries, some of the differences have blurred and often there have been intermarriage and good feelings. But our recent actions have stirred the pot beyond our powers of comprehension.

Reporting in Monday's Washington Post, Pulitzer Prize winner Anthony Shadid, author of a superb book about Iraq ("Night Draws Near"), wrote, "The growing Sunni-Shiite divide is roiling an Arab world as unsettled as at any time in a generation. Fought in speeches, newspaper columns, rumors swirling through cafes and the Internet, and occasional bursts of strife, the conflict is predominantly shaped by politics: a disintegrating Iraq, an ascendant Iran, a sense of Arab powerlessness and a persistent suspicion of American intentions. But the division has begun to seep into the region's social fabric, too. The sectarian fault line has long existed and sometimes ruptured, but never, perhaps, has it been revealed in such a stark, disruptive fashion.

"... Rarely has the region witnessed so many events, in so brief a time, that have been so widely interpreted through a sectarian lens: the empowering of Iraq's Shiite-led government and the bloodletting that has devastated the country; the lack of support by America's Sunni Arab allies -- Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia -- for the Shiite movement Hezbollah in its fight with Israel last summer; and, most decisively, the perception among many Sunni Arabs that Saddam Hussein was lynched by Shiites bent on revenge. In the background is the growing assertiveness of Shiite Iran as the influence of other traditional regional powers such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia diminishes."

That last sentence is especially relevant amidst our current saber rattling toward Iran and this past Sunday's bizarre press conference in Baghdad's Green Zone. Bizarre because reporters' cellphones were seized, no one was allowed to shoot photos or video and the briefers insisted on anonymity.

Our military presented alleged evidence of Iran's ties to Shiite militias in Iraq -- in the form of rocket-propelled grenades (RPG's), mortar shells and especially vicious devices that tear through armor called EFP's -- explosively formed penetrators. All are said to be of Iranian manufacture, purportedly brought into Iraq by the Quds Force of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

(I'm just wondering, by the way, not judging: According to the New York Times, "The shells had serial numbers in English in order to comply with international standards for arms, the officials said. One grenade, for instance, was marked with the serial number P.G.7-AT-1 followed by LOT:5-31-2006." Numbering month-day-year is an American standard. Virtually every other country, including English-speaking ones, uses day-month-year: 31-05-2006. I asked two, Mideast native speakers if the day-month-year standard was also true in Iran's Farsi language and Arabic. They answered yes.)

It would be foolhardy to dismiss the reports totally out-of-hand, just because this administration's truth-telling track record rivals Baron Munchausen's. We've all heard the story of the little-boy-who-cried-Wolf-Blitzer.

Nevertheless, as Tuesday's New York Times reported, "Both Democratic and Republican officials on Capitol Hill said that while they do not doubt that the weapons are being used to attack American troops, and that some of those weapons are being shipped into Iraq from Iran, they are still uncertain whether the weapons were being shipped into Iraq on the orders of Iran's leaders."

George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace added, "I'm not doubting the provenance of the weapons, but rather, the issue of what it says about Iranian policy and whether Iran's leaders are aware of it."

As has been suggested, this administration may just be trying to scapegoat Iran for America's failures in Iraq. But if they are hell-bent on using these allegations as part of a pretext for military action against Iran and, not coincidentally, its nuclear program, they would do well not only to remember the gross errors of far too recent memory ("slam-dunk," anyone?) but the socio-cultural implications of what Iran may or may not be up to. They could be trying to create regional havoc and increase their status as a regional superpower, but their motivations are also about protecting the religious interests of Shiite Muslims.

Until we comprehend that, we should move with the most extreme caution or not at all.

The consequences of a misstep are perilous, and yet our foolish barbarians blunder on. Conservative cold warrior Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor-at-large for UPI and the right-wing Washington Times, reported the following (as noted by Dan Froomkin's "White House Watch" column on the Washington Post website):

"At a farewell reception at Blair House for the retiring chief of protocol, Don Ensenat, who was President Bush's Yale roommate, the president shook hands with Washington Life Magazine's Soroush Shehabi. 'I'm the grandson of one of the late Shah's ministers,' said Soroush, 'and I simply want to say one US bomb on Iran and the regime we all despise will remain in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians will become radicalized.'

"'I know,' President Bush answered.

"'But does Vice President Cheney know?'' asked Soroush.

"President Bush chuckled and walked away."

Michael Winship, Writers Guild of America Award winner and former writer with Bill Moyers, writes this weekly column for the Messenger Post Newspapers in upstate New York.

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0213-29.htm

You're right on this Vaughn, there is nothing new about Iran smuggling weapons and nothing new about Iran killing Americans.

How many Americans do you suppose the Iranians should kill before we do something about it?

First of all Marine, I do not want you to take this the wrong way. Anyone killing American soldiers is an enemy.

I would suggest an element of perspective: the Defense Department figures that about 170 Americans have been killed by Iranian weapons since 2004- when they started keeping track of stuff like that. If you look at the total number of deaths, I think you'll find that this is less that those who have died in non-combat related accidents. Just the everyday events of dealing with war- logistics, human error, weather, human error, human error- has killed more that Iranian weaponry.

My question, then, is this: Why are we not rattling our sabres at the countries who are supplying arms to the forces that have killed the other 3,000?

I would wager that, if we were to actually sit down and TALK to the Iranians, we'd find we both had many common interests in the Iraq Civil War. Do we have to like them, or even trust them? No. But it costs us nothing to talk to them. But Marine, that's something we'll never know for at least two years; in spite of Bush's admonition that 'everything is still on the table", that is the one option which is not on the table.

SFC White knows more than most...just f*ckin' fact.

I've always read to learn from those who know.
Damnation of experience. So it goes for those who saddle-up.

And, evryone here lives and dies with 20-year-olds who pay.

You know Winston, I wish it could be so simple.

Back during the crisis where Iran took our embassy hostage I bet there was a bunch of talking to the Iranians going on. Can you think of any president in recent history we've had who would have reasonably and honestly spoke for America better than Jimmy Carter? The way Iran's leaders used Jimmy Carter convinced me Iran's leaders are probably less trust worthy and got less integrity than somebody along the lines of Adolf Hitler.

Neville Chamberlain figured out Adolph Hitler when he invaded Poland, I wonder what it's going to take for America to figure Iran out?

[quote name='Marine' date='Feb 15 2007, 11:24 AM' post='687296']
You're right on this Vaughn, there is nothing new about Iran smuggling weapons and nothing new about Iran killing Americans.

How many Americans do you suppose the Iranians should kill before we do something about it?
[quote]
There shouldn't be any Americans there at all, once bush knew for a fact there were no WMDs, he should have redeployed all the troops. Once bush knew for a fact that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with al qaeda or 9-11, he should have withdrawn everyone.
As of today, any and all American casualties are directly attributed to bush and cheney, their deaths are for the American right wingers who even today still believe Iraq and Iran are the central front on this so called war on terror, they are dying now just as they did in Vietnam, for presidential political reasons alone. If every enemy in iraq or iran were to throw down their guns and go home, it would still leave us the war on terror to fight, which has morphed into a world-wide threat with their training grounds in Iraq. How many battle hardened fighters have been trained in Iraq and then dispatched to some other location, to continue fighting and training? 3100 plus dead, 23,000 injured for no valid reason other than bushs mindless ego. America has and will again do better, once the shrub and is 1st puppy cheney are gone. Until then be ready to see many more mistakes that kill your fellow Americans.

Who's Funding the Sunnis?

The Bush administration claims that they care so much about protecting our troops in Iraq that they are going to go after Iran, who is at most responsible for 8% of US fatalities. Then, why not go after the people funding the Sunnis instead? After all, they are the ones doing the great majority of attacks against our beloved troops.

Yesterday, I concluded that the reason might be because some of that funding goes back to the even more beloved Saudi government. I came to that conclusion based on what analysts, experts and reporters in the field say and what the Iraq Study Group concluded, but I suppose I could be wrong. So, if this administration cares so much for the troops dying in Iraq, as they claim, why don't they investigate who is sending the money for the weapons that are killing over 90% of them?

If they don't do this, then it becomes patently obvious that they are using the troops as an excuse once again for their real agenda. They want to attack Iran at all costs.

To hype up Iran's involvement in the forces fighting against us in Iraq when all available intelligence indicates that we are fighting the Sunnis instead is unconscionable and inexplicable - unless, of course the explanation is that you don't care about the troops, you just want to manufacture a reason to attack Iran.

In his press conference on Wednesday when asked why the administration is making claims they couldn't back up against the Iranian government, President Bush said, "Does this mean you're trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I'm trying to protect our troops."

Really? Then tell us who is providing the money for the weapons that kill the great majority of them. Tell us who's funding the Sunnis.

[quote name='Marine' post='687296' date='Feb 15 2007, 11:24 AM']You're right on this Vaughn, there is nothing new about Iran smuggling weapons and nothing new about Iran killing Americans.
[quote]
[quote name='vfguenley' post='687647' date='Feb 16 2007, 09:40 AM']
How many Americans do you suppose the Iranians should kill before we do something about it?
There shouldn't be any Americans there at all, once bush knew for a fact there were no WMDs, he should have redeployed all the troops. Once bush knew for a fact that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with al qaeda or 9-11, he should have withdrawn everyone.
As of today, any and all American casualties are directly attributed to bush and cheney, their deaths are for the American right wingers who even today still believe Iraq and Iran are the central front on this so called war on terror, they are dying now just as they did in Vietnam, for presidential political reasons alone. If every enemy in iraq or iran were to throw down their guns and go home, it would still leave us the war on terror to fight, which has morphed into a world-wide threat with their training grounds in Iraq. How many battle hardened fighters have been trained in Iraq and then dispatched to some other location, to continue fighting and training? 3100 plus dead, 23,000 injured for no valid reason other than bushs mindless ego. America has and will again do better, once the shrub and is 1st puppy cheney are gone. Until then be ready to see many more mistakes that kill your fellow Americans.[/quote]
[quote]

When you say "there" where do you mean Vaughn?

The Iranians have attacked Americans in a bunch of different places. For instance in Lebanon they blew up our Embassy there before they blew up the Marine barracks. They also have been linked to the murder of 19 US servicemen bombed at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996. Additionally, Iran harbors Al Qaeda operatives who orchestrated the bombing of a Western residential compound in Saudi Arabia that killed nine Americans.

Several senior al-Qaida figures, including Osama Bin Laden's son Saad, are in Iran. You remember Ossama bin Laden don't you Vaughn, he's the fellow who claimed responsibility for knocking down some buildings here in this country, blowing up a couple of embassies in Africa, and punching a hole in the side of one of our Naval vessels and killing a number of American Sailors.

Iran has also used terrorism to raise the heat on the U.S. presence in Iraq. Iranian intelligence officials are active throughout Iraq but, for before now, they have caused only limited problems for the United States. After all, the Shiite leadership taking power in Baghdad includes many leaders with close ties to Tehran. Still, the large U.S. presence leaves the United States vulnerable to Iranian-inspired violence. Iranian commentators speak openly about holding thousands of hostages in Iraq, suggesting that they view the troops as more of an opportunity than a threat. Even a small number of additional trained and motivated fighters could greatly complicate already dimming U.S. hopes of imposing order in Iraq, particularly as they would be likely to strike in Shiite parts of Iraq, where U.S. forces are particularly thin.

Terrorists give Tehran a way to strike at the United States in Europe, Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere. Iran has cased U.S. embassies around the world and has off-the-shelf options for striking American targets. Washington recognizes that if it pushes Iran's leaders, they can push back.

So where should there be no Americans present Vaughn, where ever Tehran decides?

[quote name='Marine' post='687753' date='Feb 16 2007, 01:39 PM'][quote]

When you say "there" where do you mean Vaughn?

The Iranians have attacked Americans in a bunch of different places. For instance in Lebanon they blew up our Embassy there before they blew up the Marine barracks. They also have been linked to the murder of 19 US servicemen bombed at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996. Additionally, Iran harbors Al Qaeda operatives who orchestrated the bombing of a Western residential compound in Saudi Arabia that killed nine Americans.

Several senior al-Qaida figures, including Osama Bin Laden's son Saad, are in Iran. You remember Ossama bin Laden don't you Vaughn, he's the fellow who claimed responsibility for knocking down some buildings here in this country, blowing up a couple of embassies in Africa, and punching a hole in the side of one of our Naval vessels and killing a number of American Sailors.

Iran has also used terrorism to raise the heat on the U.S. presence in Iraq. Iranian intelligence officials are active throughout Iraq but, for before now, they have caused only limited problems for the United States. After all, the Shiite leadership taking power in Baghdad includes many leaders with close ties to Tehran. Still, the large U.S. presence leaves the United States vulnerable to Iranian-inspired violence. Iranian commentators speak openly about holding thousands of hostages in Iraq, suggesting that they view the troops as more of an opportunity than a threat. Even a small number of additional trained and motivated fighters could greatly complicate already dimming U.S. hopes of imposing order in Iraq, particularly as they would be likely to strike in Shiite parts of Iraq, where U.S. forces are particularly thin.

Terrorists give Tehran a way to strike at the United States in Europe, Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere. Iran has cased U.S. embassies around the world and has off-the-shelf options for striking American targets. Washington recognizes that if it pushes Iran's leaders, they can push back.

So where should there be no Americans present Vaughn, where ever Tehran decides?[/quote]
If what you say is accurate, then why did your hero commander & thief invade Iraq instead of Iran? If your right are we not fighting the in wrong country? Should the invasion have taken place in Iran instead of Iraq?

Because for several years Iraq topped the list of who was the greatest threat to the interests of the United States in the region Vaughn.

Just because 9/11 happen didn't change any of the previously perceived threats.

And for several years saddam was under the scrutiny of the US Air Force, in a box he couldn’t fight his way out of. You will not find any rational excuses to justify the loss of any Americans through the Iraq debacle. Bush’s “dry drunken insanity” is the only reason we are losing troops in the Middle East now. There are no other excuses that will fly in the face of history.

There is going to be a shortage of Farsi linguists. Bone up, maybe you can be an embedded blogger when the Iraq mess migrates to Iran.

Here's some help:

http://www.farsinet.com/farsi/

I am fairly certain of the shortage, else that EFP dummy would have had some on it - imagine a reporter on Washington Week had the nerve to bring that up.
And after I had that very thought running through my head too!

lenal

So the Air Force is to blame now Vaughn?

This is the best you can do to promote your war, where does it say the Air Force is to blame? Only in your goofy imagination gunny.

Well Vaughn you were saying the Air Force had Saddam under scrutiny and in a box. You must be saying they are the purveyors of the bad intelligence that Saddam had resurrected his weapons programs then. I would suppose they used ariel and spy satelite surveillance but putting all the blame on the Air Force I think is a bit harsh Vaughn.

Dry Drunk thinking is a whole lot better thinking than someone's thinking who won't admit even to themselves their is a problem with their thinking.

If you been doing the program you're probably familiar with what it's called. Ever heard of stinkin thinkin?

More on E. F. P.'s and the source

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/world/mi...amp;oref=slogin

U.S. Says Raid in Iraq Supports Claim on Iran
E-MailPrint Single Page Reprints Save Share
DiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink

By JAMES GLANZ and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
Published: February 26, 2007
BAGHDAD, Feb. 25 — A raid on a Shiite weapons cache in the southern city of Hilla one week ago is providing what American officials call the best evidence yet that the deadliest roadside bombs in Iraq are manufactured in Iran, but critics contend that the forensic case remains circumstantial and inferential.

The new evidence includes infrared sensors, electronic triggering devices and information about plastic explosives used in bombs that the Americans say lead back to Iran. The explosive material, triggering devices, other components and the method of assembly all produce weapons with an Iranian signature that has never been found outside Iraq or southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah is believed to have used weapons supplied by Iran, the Americans say.

But critics assert that nearly all the bomb components could have been produced in Iraq or somewhere else in the region. Even if the evidence were to establish that Iran is the source, they add, that does not necessarily mean that the Iranian leadership is responsible.

The raid by American and Iraqi forces discovered a fake boulder made of polyurethane and containing three of the deadliest kind of roadside bombs in Iraq. Smeared with dirt and pebbles to give it the color and texture of a rock, the polyurethane blob was resting in the back seat of a Toyota, apparently in preparation for a roadside attack, American officials said in lengthy briefings with two New York Times reporters last week.

The Toyota, along with a second vehicle and a nearby house described as an assembly point, contained components and other weaponry that the officials say demonstrate that the bomb parts must have originated in Iran. Called explosively formed penetrators, or E.F.P.’s, bombs like the ones hidden inside the fake boulder are designed to eject molten slugs that slice through American armor with deadly precision.

The assertion that the latest find greatly bolsters the theory of the Iranian origin of the E.F.P.’s is significant because it could provide the United States with a new justification to take action against Iran. But the evidence is unlikely to satisfy skeptics who have been suspicious that the Bush administration is trying to lay the groundwork for isolating or even attacking Iran. They point to the flawed intelligence used by the administration to accuse Saddam Hussein of harboring unconventional weapons before invading Iraq nearly four years ago.

Still, American military officials appear to be making an attempt to respond to critics who say the evidence is inconclusive. In the course of the detailed briefing on the Hilla discovery, Maj. Marty Weber, an explosives expert, said that most of the E.F.P.’s in Iraq use C-4 plastic explosive manufactured in Iran. At the request of the Bush administration, The Times is withholding some specific details about the weapons to protect intelligence sources and methods.

In addition to the Hilla discovery, military officials are expected to disclose at a briefing on Monday details about materials found in a raid in Diyala Province, the mixed Sunni-Shiite battleground north of Baghdad, that, according to one military official, included enough components to make more than 100 E.F.P.’s. The official asked not to be identified because the matter is so sensitive.

All of the items found in the Hilla raid have been used by Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, said Major Weber, a master explosives ordnance technician who has studied many kinds of improvised bombs in the Middle East and elsewhere and is closely involved in the effort in Iraq.

In addition, the shallow concave caps, which are made of copper and change into armor-piercing balls when the E.F.P.’s explode, were smooth and flawless, indicating to the explosives expert that they were manufactured in Iran because of the high precision required to make them so. Also found during the raid were 10 107-millimeter Strella rockets that had Iranian markings.

A Question of Technology

The most specialized part of the E.F.P.’s that were found is the concave copper disc, called a liner, that rolls into a deadly armor-piercing ball when the device explodes. Although American explosives experts say that the liner is deceptively difficult to make properly, the discs in Hilla look like a thick little alms plate or even a souvenir ashtray minus the indentations for holding cigarettes.

The electronics package is built around everyday items like the motion sensors used in garage-door openers and outdoor security systems; in fact, at the heart of some of the bombs found in Iraq is a type of infrared sensor commonly sold at electronic stores like RadioShack.

Major Weber said the use of precision copper discs combined with passive infrared sensors amounted to “a no-brainer” that the explosive components were of Iranian origin, because no one has used that sort of configuration except Iranian-backed Shiite militias.

Could copper discs be manufactured with the required precision in Iraq? “You can never be certain,” Major Weber said. But he said that “having studied all these groups, I’ve only seen E.F.P.’s used in two areas of the world: The Levant and here,” meaning in Hezbollah areas of Lebanon and in Iraq. Hezbollah is thought to be armed and trained by Iran.

Skeptics say the new details do not support a conclusion that only Iran could be providing the components. “Iran may well be involved in the supply of these weapons, but so far they haven’t proved it,” said Joseph Cirincione, senior vice president for National Security at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research and advocacy organization.

“Before we act on the assumption that these are Iranian we’ve got to rule out all these other possibilities,” he said. “The military hasn’t done that.”

He noted that a related weapon, the shape charge, “has been around for decades.

“This is not new stuff,” he continued. “There is a vast international arms market selling shape charges from many countries.”

New Details

The new information is more substantial than the limited details disclosed earlier this month in Baghdad, said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a research group based in Alexandria, Va.

“That initial briefing was not much to write home about,” Mr. Pike said. “The points that they are making here are rather more convincing. Whether they’re true is a completely different question.”

Mr. Pike said he was not swayed by arguments that the copper discs could only be made by equipment in Iran. All that is required are machine tools, he said. “You can buy them,” he said. “I mean, look at all those cylinders people use for L.P.G. cooking gas. Do you think they are all imported from Iran? Probably not. I bet there are guys all over Iraq who make those things for a living.”

But he found other details more persuasive. “The two points they are making about the tradecraft of the fuse and the wrappings of the explosives, those are pretty good pieces of evidence,” he said. “I will say that, totally apart from any of this evidence, I would be astonished if Iran was not providing military support to the Shia militias. It should be self-evident that they are doing that.”

Afternoon Attack


American officials gave this account of the Hilla raid:

It took place at 1:30 p.m. on Feb. 17 after an informant reported seeing a tow truck carrying rockets.

The fake rock with three E.F.P. canisters inside was sitting on the back seat of a different vehicle, a Toyota Crown. The trunk of the same car contained various equipment including an infrared sensor, a G.P.S. unit, two compasses and a jug filled with an unknown explosive.

Tools and materials for making fake rocks were found inside the house along with a partly completed rock and two E.F.P.’s. Among the items found there were seven battery packs needed to set off the blasting caps that initiate the E.F.P. explosion, four cans of epoxy foam and three of the infrared sensors.

The E.F.P.’s were designed to inflict maximum damage. The positioning of the sensor and the exact angles of the E.F.P.’s inside the rock were fixed to find weak points in American armored vehicles like Humvees and Strykers.

“The E.F.P. canisters are typically arrayed at angles to minimize the effects of countermeasures,” Major Weber said. “They want to hit the truck when it is already well into the kill zone.”

The infrared sensors could be armed and disarmed at a distance with cellphones, long-distance cordless phones or radios. That allows the attackers to arm the devices only when convoys are approaching. Then, when the convoys trip the sensors, the E.F.P.’s explode.

Major Weber said many of those techniques were clearly Iranian in origin. Critics said that all of them could be replicated by skilled Iraqis or others in the Middle East with a solid knowledge of electronics and basic manufacturing techniques.

Still, Major Weber said, there were other indications of Iranian involvement in Hilla. In the raid, the Iraqi and American troops also found a red 1988 Chevy tow truck carrying 10 Strella rockets under a false bottom in the bed. The rockets had MJ-1 contact fuses and were probably made in China and repainted with Iranian markings — the usual practice for weapons that Iran imports and re-sells. Following international convention, the markings were in English, not Persian. They indicated that the rockets had been made in 2005 and each carried 18 kilograms of explosive.

As to why the Iranians would leave such obvious markings on the shells, Major Weber speculated that they had simply been taken out of stock and shipped across the border.

Comparisons to Others

Major Weber said he doubted that Hezbollah — the group that the Mahdi militia leader Moktada al-Sadr has used as a model for his political movement — would have provided the material and technology to the Mahdi militia or to other Shiite fighters in Iraq. “It is possible, but based upon my experience we have not seen Hezbollah share information or technology on anything until they have been told to,” he said.

“The E.F.P. is their silver bullet,” he said, referring to Iran and its allied militias.

Major Weber also said that the use of passive infrared sensors, or P.I.R.’s, was one of the strongest markers of Iranian involvement, based on years of experience indicating that only Iranian-backed groups employ the sensors in that manner. But he also acknowledged that the electronic components needed to make the sensors were easily available off the shelf at places like RadioShack.

Those components are used in commercial products, like motion sensors for a lighting system or garage door openers. Those products are opened up, rewired and repackaged. Sometimes on products requiring the triggering of multiple beams to close the circuit, masking tape is used to cover up some beams so that only one is triggered.

“Every P.I.R. in Iraq has been RadioShack, Digigard or Everspring,” Major Weber said. “But in southern Lebanon I never saw them use RadioShack.”

While he maintained that the copper liner also required specialized equipment and skills to make properly, that assertion also rests on some rather subtle distinctions. A senior military official displayed pictures of a stack of some 30 copper E.F.P. liners seized in a raid in Mahmudiya, a town south of Baghdad. Such liners, Major Weber said, were “copycats” stamped in Iraq, not Iran. To the untrained eye, the liners initially looked identical to the genuine ones.

But Major Weber then pointed out that there were often slightly visible cracks forming circles around the tops of the liners when they were set on a table with their concave sides pointing down. Those imperfections were signs that the liners had been made in Iraq, Major Weber said. And because of the imperfections, he said, an E.F.P. made with them would be much less deadly. Such an E.F.P. would fragment rather than curl into a ball, he said, and the fragments would be much less likely to pierce armor.

I think the NY Times is a bit late on this story. Technology of the sort they're discussing has been in Iraq for better than three years and Marines who have had to be dealing with it have been hollering made in Iran for just about as long.