Neither can I.

Blair called the recent attack on a British convoy an act of terrorism.

Are all fighters in Iraq, not on our side, terrorists? None being treated as POWs for instance. I guess my point would be, people not of the original regime, and not using Al Qeada tactics of blowing up and or killing innocent civilians. I suppose some people could be recently resisting an occupation for whatever reason? Do they have a legitimate status outside of everyone else?

Thanks for anyone who can address this.

Do they have a legitimate status outside of everyone else?

POW is a legal term (international law) given to combatants of a nation that is part of the Geneva Conventions. The government in Iraq is actually friendly so that makes our mission there a police action. Therefore all rights to self defense apply to our soldiers there. It doesn’t matter what the terrorists are actually called, they can legally be killed or captured based on their actions. Keep in mind that I am no JAG, but I have had some training on this.

The violence being perpetrated in Iraq these days is primarily by criminal gangs and AQ in Iraq. I’d call them “terrorists”. I know that’s not a popular word among “progressives,” but then neither is “democracy.”

/nitpick

If America is always wrong, then any use of force by America is always unjustified. Which means anyone like us ‘cons wishing for at least the threat of force when dealing with terrorist regimes like Iran, must be evil. Because we’re urging something which Unknown _knows_ with all the certainty of religious faith is utterly _wrong_.

Liberal hate for America means that any defense of America is criminal in their eyes, and any attack on us is not only justified but a positive good.

Second, I’d say that labels really don’t matter much here in any case — it’s not like we’re somehow supporting our “neocon” or the “lefty-lib” sports teams. What matters are the real consequences of real decisions, attitudes, and actions in the real world. In this case, such realities involve bluff, threat, intimidation, and propaganda on one side, and at least apparent fear, acquiesence and submission on the other. The result has been to provide a terrorist-supporting state of theocratic fascists, vigorously pursuing weapons of the most massive destruction, with a huge propaganda victory, emboldening its supporters both within and outside its borders — including those within our borders. That will have consequences — so you hardly need to be a neocon, however that’s defined, to find such a “resolution” disappointing, to say the least. The addled left, head firmly immersed in sand, is the only segment so little attached to reality that it thinks the result a “good” one.

I mean - you didn’t know that neocons seek liberal democracy through peaceful means? I mean isn’t it obvious?

Jeez, man….

This is from Kenneth Timmerman - a peace-loving neocon. Earlier he refered to Patrick Cockurn as the ‘looney left’ for drawing a link to the capture of the British navy boys(who now appear to have been “collecting intelligence” on Iran at the time) and the U.S capture of two Iranian diplomats previous.

But Kenny boy seems to think the Iranian populace is going to to rise up against the Mullah’s after a U.S attack.

This is an ‘expert’ on Iran, remember.

Are There no historical precedents for where we have brought democracy to authoritarian nations thru war? Was it a bad thing?

Can you negotiate a dictatorship into a democracy?

Either way - ‘regime change’ isn’t in my book of realistic foreign policy goals.

Just doesn’t strike me as above the board, if you know what I’s saying….

Well, idealy no. But its not a perfect world is it?

That still doesnt answer the question.

Forgive me, but you’re not being very substantive here.

Stumbley, I do not mean to imply they are freedom fighters necessarily. But labeling everyone “terrorists” and calling things “terrorist actions” as Blair did, of people who are fighting against us in Iraq does not tell me if someone is a hardened long time Al -Qeada member, or a disenchanted former American supporter (which is possible).

Does it matter? Well the fact that we once helped Saddam fight Iran should not indicate we are as bad as Saddam was. Likewise, not everyone in Iraq is probably a terrorist. If they are, the word loses it’s meaning and simply defines anyone who fights, and nothing particularly awful like torture, beheadings of civilians, and chlorine gas bombs in shopping markets.

I have “audited” your blog before but never posted.

Couple things. You should consider changing the 1st sentence in your “About Me” frame to read: “I WAS a lifelong democrat…” as it is obvious you are no longer, or are perhaps are, but in name only.

First things first…

Capn B…Shrub is no Teddy Roosevelt, and the Raisuli did not have Iran’s army or the backing of China and Russia.

Think…Careful, You are attempting to make a fine distinction between Jihadis and terrorists. This will undoubtedly short circuit the brains of many neocons. Their CPUs just can not process that quickly. Remember, Pottery Barn rules: You break it, you bought it.

Wheels…If this is indeed a “police action” perhaps you should try looking under guidelines for policing a civil war for your “labels”. These are MUTUAL combatants. The Sunni would just rather risk genocide than bow down to the Shia government we installed for them.

stumbly…You are indeed correct, it is “speak”. Your knowledge of American history is good, your knowledge of Arabian history needs work. Those “gangs” as you refer to them are mainly tribes with family, religious, and political ties that go back 1000 years or more. Do not make the mistake of thinking they are just rabble. They outlasted Saddam together. They know how to survive.

Sally…do you want a draft? That is what war with Iran means. Plain and simple. They have 450,000 frontline troops on the ground right now (that does not even include the Iraqi Mahdi, Sunni and other militia we would have to engage simultaneously). Total Iranian mobilization strength is about 18 million men. Think about that while you consider just how overextended and broke we are with our 350 thousand someodd guys and gals over there. Then there is always China and Russia to worry about. Yes negotiation is preferred right now.

Comments?

Maybe thats why you lost. Sorry dude. You put it out there.

Comments?

The Mahdi and Sadrists were well organized when Saddam was in power, which is why they are dangerous now, and why they don’t want to just give into the Maliki government. Also, remember, not all Sunni were Baathists.

My point was, they ARE willing to blow up their kids to prevent the Shia government from keeping power.

To be perfectly honest, I don’t care if they kill each other to the last man. But make no mistake, they are going to kill each other. I just have a problem with our people being stuck in the middle.

Also, one more thing to consider with regards to attacking Iran. Do you REALLY trust the Maliki government, being Shia and all, not to stab us in the back if we engage with Iran?

That must be that whole DEATH=LIFE thing Orwell was talking about. Thanks for playing.

Win Lose, these are words for childrens games Lee. There is no such thing in war. Everybody loses. We have nothing to gain here. Right now our people are being killed by BOTH sides and are on the verge of starting WWIII by engaging with Iran. The Iraqis are killing us because we are keeping them from killing one another. They will continue to do so until we are gone. Then they will go back to killing each other until they are tired of killing. Maybe then they will be ready for help. Right now I would rather just get out of the way and let them figure it out for themselves for a while.

Other things being equal, negotiation is always to be preferred. But then, other things are rarely equal — sometimes “negotiation” is just a euphemism for surrender. And if a draft scares you so much that you’d rather “negotiate” incremental surrender, then you should at least recognize and face what you’re doing. And maybe start learning how to face Mecca as well.

Myself, I don’t think a draft is necessary — yet. But I’m virtually certain it will be, if we continue to back away from the increasingly bold provocations of the islamists, whatever they call themselves and whatever form they take. Pusillanimity won’t work forever.

We settled that down in a couple months because they were exhausted. That is why there were so few NATO dead. They were all ready to quit.

The Iraqis haven’t had their “grudge match” yet. They will not rest until they do.

Let them take the starch out each other for a while. When they are ready for the worlds help they will let us know. They are not ready for peace yet. All we are doing is prolonging the inevitable and getting our people killed.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

….There are a bunch of you every century, I guess.

Lee wants to save them by slaughtering them. What is your plan?

BTW, it is both customary and respectful to give a citations or link to credit those you plagiarize from.

RBT

Its like trying to break up a bar fight between 2 guys who just absolutely will not stop. Sometimes you just have to push them outside and let them go at it for a little while and then step in when they are taking a break. Otherwise you end up the one with the broken nose, and they end up going at it anyway.

We have been in Iraq 4 YEARS and we haven’t even secured Baghdad Lee, nevermind the rest of Iraq. The Commanders are throwing our numbers like 10 to 12 years before Iraq is secure. That is nuts.

Who is being naive here, THEY DONT WANT PEACE YET LEE. What part of that don’t you understand? Do you really think keeping our people in an eternal war is going to solve this? In the meantime our boarders are wide open, we are broke, our troops are working on 3,4 and 5 tours. How much longer do we keep sending them back. How long do you think these guys can stay lucky? This can not go on indefinitely.

You are talking alot but all I am hearing is fight fight fight kill kill kill. You got a solution in there anywhere?

From now on lets try to keep the barbs and flames out if we can. If you would rather sling insults, I can do that to, but that is not why I am here. Lets wait until we are finished talking before we strart insulting each other, deal?

What we saw here was what one sees in a huge array of cases, a mixture of both. Did we blow anything up or even overfly Tehran? No. We didn’t need to. Not because the Iranians got a big dose of fuzzy-warm feelings, but because diplomacy provided a way out, while, carriers were assembling in the Gulf in the event that diplomacy failed.

It was, much like the vast majority of similar situations, a mix of both soft power and hard power coercion that pulled the deal off in the end. To decry a lack of aggressiveness is to ignore the gathering of forces in the Gulf. To decry a lack of diplomacy is to ignore the back-channel negotiations and public posturing that allowed Iran to back down.

If, owing to some partisan bias, one fails to see both elements at work, then one simply isn’t observing enough of the situation to learn anything and is only becoming more dangerous in one’s ignorance.

BRD

Balkans are so unrestive that, until recently, they were a joke in good standing.

Jeeves: “There are slight rumblings in The Balkans again, Sir”.

Wooster: “Jolly Good, What!”

As far as the Iraqis are concerned, like the Balkans we have Ethnic Cleansing on our hands. What makes it different - and difficult - is that the people being cleansed were running the joint until Dear Uncle Saddam took a well deserved gut shot.

So we have the spectacle of the ex-killers being hunted down and killed by the next iteration of killers. If we weren’t there (and the Sunnis realize this deep down) you would be seeing a REAL blood bath with the Sunnis contributing the blood.

Remember this is a tribal society were justice takes the form of blood vendettas. If you’re of Italian descent, think Sicily and Mafia. And now The Sopranos.

As far as Iran goes, they are out on a limb. The society is falling apart - in some cases literally - and the prehistoric mullahs don’t have a clue (they reject things like engineering in their “schools” in favor of grouping singing from the koran) that they need at a minimum the nineteenth century.

We’ll all breathe a sigh of relief while The Israeli Bomb drops on select targets in Iran…if they survive that long. In contrast to North Korea, the IBomb will work as planned.

Have a Nice Day, Prod.

Once again gentle readers, it is time for a tour of the Psych-bloggers, that intrepid bunch of mental health professionals as we take a look at their take on……

But I’m not so sure “the gathering forces” were that much of an element (where did you read about that? I can’t find it.).

But that’s pretty much standard practice whenever there is a situation of concern like that. Plus we already have virtually all of our deployable our armed forces right next door.

But if you think Iran got a PR coup out of this outcome, what do you think they would have got had Britain called in airstrikes, and the subsequent video footage of dead children being pulled out of smoking rubble?

My remarks were really directed at the sense of “coitus interruptus” by folks around here that they couldn’t get their war on, and the name-calling directed towards our formerly-known-as-brave-and-steadfast partner in the Coalition of the Willing.

It keeps getting tossed around here, but I already posted a link from a British officer saying something to the effect that they had every right to defend themselves, they were just in an impossible situation.

Can someone point me to a (legitimate) link that says otherwise?

What exactly were they supposed to do? Open fire with pistols from rubber boats on 2 Iranian gunboats, to avoid making the British look “impotent”?

Let’s not forget that Britain is not at war with Iran, so they are not officially “the enemy.” Indeed, the first move Britain made was to freeze all bilateral trade with Iran, so they are hardly even on a war footing with each other.

The other option the crew had, I guess, was to call in howitzer strikes from their ship hundreds of yards away, which would certainly have gotten the crew killed as welll as probably some on the Indian ship they were inspecting. Not a very pleasant outcome either is it?

Wipe your chin, you are drooling again (kill kill kill).

Way to SAVE those poor Iraqis Lee. Lets see, what again is your main FEAR of muslims, they will kill anything that does not convert? So you are saying we should do the same thing? My you are a genius aren’t you. Excellent way to problem solve. Like looking for a gas leak with a lighted match, a simple solution, but in the end it will blow up in your face.

History? WE(?) crushed the Nazis? Whats this “WE” stuff my conservative little coward. It took FDR 4 years to talk the republican conservatives into WWII, THEY wouldn’t budge until Pearl Harbor, except to make money of course. Try googling the Ney Commission history boy.

Oh, and, as a Bush supporter, you should not bring up Nazi Germany too often. How well do you know your history?

If TR is spinning in his grave it is because he is disgusted by what passes for a president these days.

4 YEARS, 450 BILLION DOLLARS AND WE STILL HAVE NOT EVEN SECURED BAGHDAD. Haliburton is doing well though. Heck of a job Shrub.

Keep the faith Lee. KILL KILL KILL. That’ll save’m. - You and OBL deserve each other.

In a calculated show of force, the U.S. Navy has begun a major exercise in the Gulf, a move that Bush administration officials said was part of a broader strategy to contain Iranian power in the region.

Two U.S. aircraft carriers - the John C. Stennis and the Dwight D. Eisenhower - participated in the exercise Tuesday along with more than a dozen other warships. It was the first time that two carriers had conducted joint operations in the Gulf since 2003, the year the United States invaded Iraq. Link

Insofar as getting one’s war on, and the like, I think that a lot of folks (and it’s a perspective I can certainly identify with), is that Britain’s tone seemed very nearly apologetic, and lacked any hint of steel.

This is a problem for a number of reasons, the main one being is that it dilutes the deterrence effect generated by the presence of forces in region, and weakening that signal tends, in general, to encourage one’s opponent to call the bluff.

UB, it is also worth noting that one could do a lot of things (like has been done with Iran and Libya before) that involve use of force, without bombing civilians. Options like deliberate overflight of airspace, purposeful incursion into territorial waters, attacking oil platforms, sinking the Iranian navy, etc.

“BTW, it is both customary and respectful to give a citations or link to credit those you plagiarize from.”

Hey, prodigal, sorry. Did I slight you in not providing attribution for your “let them eat cake (wipe each other out, they’re just Wogs anyway)” statement? Or was it the Niemoeller quote you were referring to?

And we’ve laid the “chickenhawk” argument to rest long ago, thanks very much. (Some of us have jobs here at home that protect warfighters in much the same way as being “in theater,” by the way…)

You wouldn’t happen to have the RoE link handy, would you?

Thanks,

BRD

You go on to write:

“UB, it is also worth noting that one could do a lot of things (like has been done with Iran and Libya before) that involve use of force, without bombing civilians. Options like deliberate overflight of airspace, purposeful incursion into territorial waters, attacking oil platforms, sinking the Iranian navy, etc.”

Well I can see the flyovers and the encroaching on the waters, but by bombing oil platforms and sinking the navy we would just have a war on our hands then, wouldn’t we? A bit much over 15 “detainees” to whom no obvious harm had been done. Do you see Iran as within its rights to do the same to us as a response to the 5 Iranians we are holding?

But more important, where is the evidence that these tactics are more effective (or effective at all) at resolving this type of crisis?

Finally, I guess it’s all a matter of opinion but I don’t think Britain sounded apologetic at all. I think they sounded, well, British.

I know to many people here in the States anyone with a British accent sounds like a priss, but they (the government, at least) always insisted they were in Iraqi waters, and that the Iranian action was illegal. They stayed firm in that position and they got their soldiers back.

The Royal Navy does train its men in the techniques needed to fight at just such a dangerous stage. “They had all the rights available to act in self-defence under law,” a senior military officer said. But they were in an “almost impossible position”

Link is here.

Neo, I am sorry to complain, but your new site is slow as molasses.

Doing something like attacking an oil platform, potting a couple of fighters, or bombing something doesn’t axiomatically precipitate a full-blown war. Escalation is a graduated series of steps that can lead to any one of a number of outcomes.

The salient points, however, of nabbing British uniformed personnel in Iraqi waters (even if in Iranian waters, there’s a huge body of established protocol, law, and practice on this) is a much bigger no-no. Past that, threatening to try uniformed personnel with espionage runs blatantly counter to conventions of a number of varieties.

As far as the Iranians nabbed by the US (and I’m not sure exactly which set you are referring to), there ’s a much different set of acceptable behaviors for grabbing non-uniformed foreign nationals who are flat out on foreign soil.

If, for instance, Iran had caught 5 US soldiers 200 km into Iran, that would be equivalent to what the captured Iranians were up to.

In this specific case, the Iranian government was flat out in the wrong, and the British response didn’t sound reserved or something, but rather they were taking a tone of “Well, if you keep jacking us around, we’ll, like, not like that. And stuff.”

In terms of the diplomatic language used, I don’t recall Britain ever having said that Iran did something wrong. All they ever did was say that the UK wasn’t at fault. That’s a remarkably weak choice of diplomatic posture.

UB, typically, frets that we’d “have a war on our hands then, wouldn’t we?” Note that the mullahs, thinking the West is permeated with such easily-frightened worriers, have no such concerns. But we obviously wouldn’t have a war on our hands if Iran, wisely, chose to keep its navy out of our sight — which I think, for all its public posturing and bluster, would be entirely likely as long as it was clear that we meant what we said. On the other hand, the real risk of real war increases every time we give them evidence that we’ll back away from any public confrontation.

no, it was the Niemoeller paraphrase. It is an admittedly irritating peave of mine. Credit where credit is due and all that.

On that subject, and the one above, if stabilizing Iraq is the primary goal, why are the hawks itching to bomb Iran? If we are really there to stablize the region, why attack Iran now? How will inciting them into a full blown guerilla war across the Iraqi border, at a minimum, help us achieve our ends?

BTW, I was not labeling you a chickenhawk, just suggesting you consider the reality of what is happening over there as opposed to the hallucinations produced by the neocon Kool Aid.

As far as you labeling me a nazi racist, guess again. We are in a crossfire right now. The only thing we seem to be achiving at the moment is holding on and trying to keep from being over run and having our troops massacred along with the Sunni. In order for Iraq to work we are going to need atleast another 150000 troops on the ground. More if we attack Iran. I really don’t think we can accomodate that without a draft, or more mercinaries, which I am totally against. I would support a draft if I had more faith in Bush, but mercinaries are a bad idea. If Bush doesn’t have the brains or guts to do this right, then we need to pull them out now. Otherwise we are simply waiting time and delaying the inevitable.

It does not appear to me that the Iraqis are prepared to do what is necessary to make this work. Their bloodlust is too high. In the end, if they force me to choose between them and us, I choose us. When they are ready, we can help them. Till then, let them have at it. JMHO

The Iranians are not our enemies. We are not at war with them. Our rules of engagement at that time stated that we could only use lethal force if we felt that we were in imminent danger of a loss of life. By the time the true intent of the Iranians had become apparent - and we could have legitimately fought back - it was too late for action.

We were completely surrounded, and in addition to the loss of life, any attempted to fight back would caused a major international incident and an escalation of tension within the region. Our team had seconds to make a decision and we believe that we made the right decision. We still believe this was the right thing to do.”

Lt. Carman went on: “Some have questioned why HMS Cornwall did not provide greater protection for the team. HMS Cornwall is there to guard the vital oil platforms and command the coalition forces. She is also the platform by where boarding teams can launch from and patrol out. Not only should she not have been closer to us but she physically could not have been, the water is simply too shallow.

Thanks for the link. There are a couple of troubling things, and a couple of reasonable things in the text you copied over.

The concerning bits are that the Royal Navy is tasking people out in a hazardous environment with absolutely no provision for force protection, and, evidently, a strong predilection not to protect their sailors.

Secondly, reread the language very carefully, and you’ll note that they’ve assumed all agency in this situation, and have attributed no sense of agency to the Iranians. That’s a very disturbing behavior, and is typically a posture taken by a powerless person in a subordinate position.

That the UK should let that kind of thinking inform their decisions is poor.

On the bright side, given the link and the text you’ve provided, the 15 sailors were out on the thin edge of the wedge, and so I can understand their reluctance to open fire. Nonetheless, I’m still rather bothered by a NATO Ally, nuclear power, and close friend of the US, who have seemingly made surrender an M.O. of their military. That just doesn’t bode well for much of anything.

BRD

As for the TR quote, I found out he actually said “speak,” because I looked it up while writing this piece. I decided to go with “walk,” however, because it’s almost always the way the quote is written, and not to get into a history-lesson digression. That’ll teach me :-)!

“Doing something like attacking an oil platform, potting a couple of fighters, or bombing something doesn’t axiomatically precipitate a full-blown war. Escalation is a graduated series of steps that can lead to any one of a number of outcomes.”

“A number of outcomes” - OK, fair enough, but is the immediate and safe return of captured soldiers likely to be among them?

You link to incidents of armed conflict with Libya and Iran, but those were responses more or less “in kind” to agressive actions, and not part of a diplomatic effort to release captives, which is a different situation entirely.

As for the 5 Iranians in our custody, I was referring to the ones we captured in the raid on the Iranian Liason office in Arbill:

“United States troops raided an Iranian office in northern Iraq on 11 January 2007 and detained five employees…As of March 27, 2007 the five Iranian detainees were being interrogated at a U.S. prison camp in Iraq. There were no plans to release them.”

You then wrote:

“In terms of the diplomatic language used, I don’t recall Britain ever having said that Iran did something wrong. All they ever did was say that the UK wasn’t at fault. That’s a remarkably weak choice of diplomatic posture.”

Not sure where you would have gotten that impression, but it is inaccurate:

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain said today that the seizure of 15 British naval personnel by Iranian forces last week was “unjustified and wrong” and took place in Iraqi waters. (link)

regards
UB

First of all, thanks a ton for the links. It’s not often that I see actual sourcing of information in blog comments, and it’s a practice to be commended.

I guess the way that I am more accustomed to seeing this done is a denunciation in relatively strong terms of an “Act of Piracy in Iraqi territorial waters by armed, uniformed members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.” Followed, in response to Iranian threats to try the sailors for espionage, by statements condemning Iran for the trial of uniformed soldiers for espionage, in direct contravention of international law, in particular, the Geneva Convention. Both sets of statements to be supplemented by assertions that “Britain and the US deplore this illegal act in the strongest possible terms, and no options are being ruled out in response to this Act of Piracy, sanctioned by the Iranian government.”

If further saber rattling was needed, overflights of Iranian oil installations by military aircraft, and movement of one or more ships substantively within Iranian waters, would have been - at the level the crisis reached - appropriate.

I stand corrected about the Iranians captured at Irbil, but as that discussion very quickly veers off into the broader issue of Iranian involvement in Iraq, I’d just as soon leave that for another day.

My suspicion, on some level, was that a function of this crisis, in addition to Iranian saber-rattling, was to test the waters, particularly when trying to get a bead on how serious folks are about their nuclear program. My read on the response of the West, in particular Europe, is that the Iranians have ascertained that there really is no particularly effective impediment to their development of nuclear weapons, as many in the west seem anxious to make their own deterrent less credible.

BRD

Re your concern about sending them out unprepared, he said they had done 66 such missions in just the last 4 weeks without incident, and they were armed with sidearms and rifles. It seems that until this incident, a helicopter gunship hovering over a presumably-innocent foreign vessel during a routine search (in Iraqi waters) would have seemed excessively agressive and may even have hampered the search operation.

As for the statement imparting “no sense of agency” on the part of the Iranians, what about these lines:

“But when we tried to leave, they [the Iranians] prevented us by blocking us in. By now it was becoming increasingly clear that they had arrived with a planned intent.

“Some of the Iranian sailors were becoming deliberately aggressive and unstable. They rammed our boat and trained their heavy machine guns, RPGs and weapons on us.

“Another six boats were closing in on us. We realized that our efforts to reason with these people were not making any headway. Nor were we able to calm some of the individuals down.

“It was at this point that we realized that had we resisted there would have been a major fight, one we could not have won with consequences that would have had major strategic impact. We made a conscious decision to not engage the Iranians and do as they asked. They boarded our boats, removed our weapons and steered the boats towards the Iranian shore.”

BRD writes:

On the bright side…the sailors were out on the thin edge of the wedge, and so I can understand their reluctance to open fire. Nonetheless, I’m still rather bothered by a NATO Ally, nuclear power, and close friend of the US, who have seemingly made surrender an M.O. of their military.”

Here I think you’re being unfair to those sailors. They were on two rafts with rifles and pistols and were surrounded by 8 gunboats with RPGS and heavy caliber machine guns. Can you honestly call that “making surrender an M.O.”?

Now if they were at war with Iran, I can see expecting a bit more resistance from them. But if that were the case it’s likely they would have had more support (being so close to Iranian waters), and also would have viewed the approaching boats as hostile as soon as visual contact was made, giving them more time to prepare a defense.

UB