Steve. The border with Iran is 733 or so long and there's plenty of cross-border traffic, trade and pilgrims.
Even if it were possible, which is doubtful, what right would they Americans have to stop that, and why would the Iraq government want them to or let them.
see NY Times story on Iran Iraq trade
http://tinyurl.com/3cptd2
Posted by dsp at April 11, 2007 08:32 AMPerhaps because you are using all your forces to seal off and partition Baghdad.
Or perhaps because the Bush junta wants war with Iran?
You don't move 3 aircraft carriers and 100 Naval ships into the Gulf if you don't mean war in April.
Posted by Christopher at April 11, 2007 08:49 AMWe can't even seal our own border. How the hell can we seal anybody else's?
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 11, 2007 09:13 AMMG Caldwell notes militias are "trained in how to carry out complex attacks..." Perhaps that's one of the reasons CIA reported over two years ago that the Iraq war "...provided world-class training for highly organized battle-hardened anti-US combatants capable of operating in Europe and North America." Bring it on, indeed, Mr. Bush.
Strangely, I can't get the chorus from "Big Yellow Taxi" out of my head. That ever happen to you?
Posted by Pvt. Keepout at April 11, 2007 09:22 AMGeneral Petraeus regarded the campaign as a success although Tal Afar, close to the Syrian border, has since fallen back into insurgent control.
Rachel Maddow was talking about this on AAR; building walls to divide Sunni neighborhoods from Shiites had short term success in bringing down the number of incidents. The Bushies may be hoping that by applying the same method to Baghdad they will produce just enough of a lull in the killing to allow Bush to say "see, the surge is working!" It may buy them enough to get a few good headlines for them over the summer, but it won't be enough to convince the world that we need to bomb Iran, I think. And if they're thinking that 40,000 tired, wounded, ill-equipped and untrained soldiers are enough to take on Iran, they're insane.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 11, 2007 09:46 AMChristopher that's part of the message being given to the little hostage taker and his boss. The other part is Biden discussing a blockade of incoming gasoline and outgoing crude. They also know The Moron has his finger on the trigger.
Posted by JohnT at April 11, 2007 09:46 AMBecause they were able to whip up "patriotic" fervor for the Iraq invasion, only two years removed from 9/11, Dumbya thinks all he has to do is strap on his codpiece and we'll all goosestep into place behind him. He doesn't realize (a) it's six years after and he still hasn't caught bin Laden, (b)his administration is drowning in criminal scandals and (c) he's a national joke. Sadly, that won't prevent him from bombing Iran. Oh, and the 40K soldiers aren't there to invade Iran. They're all we have to defend our forces in Iraq when the Iranians swarm over the long border to exact their revenge. That's after they've blockaded oil shipments to us and sent a few genuine terrorists to some major U.S. cities. In 2004, Junior's campaign slogan should have been "W -- staying the course to Armageddon."
Posted by dalloway at April 11, 2007 10:02 AMI too don't see the connection between these mech brigades and sealing the border, but otherwise this is a great piece.
Good job Steve! Stay on it!
SecDef Gates recently presented the FY2008 to the House, facing Mr. Murtha.
"As to the President’s defense budget requests, I believe it is important to consider their combined price tag – more than $700 billion – in some historical context as there has been, understandably, some element of sticker shock at the total."
You got that right, chum. At a time when the US has no national enemies in the world that threaten us with attack--seven hundred billion in one year is a tad heavy. That's over $2300 for every man, woman and child in America. No wonder babies cry!
"The President’s FY 2008 Global War on Terror Request for $141.7 billion complies with Congress’s direction to include the costs of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in the annual Defense Department budget."
There seems to be no end to these fisacos, if we let these clowns have their way, no matter what the American people want.
Sy Hersh told us that the Israeli's suggested to us closing the borders with Syria after we first invaded. From that, we know bu$h is not smart enough to think of closing the borders with Iran? Or even wants to!
Posted by Seven of Six at April 11, 2007 10:02 AMI suspect the 40,000 with armor are to be placed there for defense, rather than offense. They will protect against a surge of Iranian forces, supplies and angry allies who would undoubtedly wish to harm some American "troops". With massive air cover, they would probably be reasonably effective, for a while. These delusional idiots have great faith in their precious i.e.: predator drones, satellite imagery, cruise missiles, air and armor and the divine right of Empire.
The ideas of divide and conquer Baghdad is desperate flailing for an idea. If they actually try it, the residents who are left will be the ones to take up arms in rage. If they are counting on the Iraqi forces to be of any help in the fight, they'd better look to their backs. I wonder, in how many of the "forward bases", active Shia militia members, in uniform, would turn their guns on the Americans when they see a chance? Baghdad probably still has at least 2.5 million residents. It would be one hell of a round-up to get most military age men and keep them locked up. We don't have enough troops!
These geniuses are constantly being amazed at how crafty these ragheads can be. Of course, it's always the enemy you want to attack next who is doing all the thinking. Today, we have always been at war with Iran. I am constantly reading about how American soldiers and "planners" are saying things like, "It's like a game of cat and mouse, only these are very smart mice". The constant surprise of our Commanders at how well their opponents learn from their experience implies, to me, that they always have and will continue to seriously underestimate them. That's very dangerous in an Imperial occupation force.
The amoral cabal infesting the Executive branch cares precisely nothing for the will of the American people, or the power of Congress to impede their schemes. No matter how insane and illegal an assault on Iran would be, if they think it will further their interests, they will do it. They also have a pathological faith in their once shiny military option. They still disdainfully dismiss European efforts to use diplomacy. Their view: "If we had a military as weak as theirs, we'd probably talk about diplomacy, too" They truly believe the biggest DICK wins and they can't even begin to understand that, if it stays UP for more than four years, it's time to call the doctor.
Did I mention that these cretins are so selfish it could be diagnosed as insanity?
If it happens, I'm thinking this will be a blockade action first. Unless Iran performs or is goaded into performing a massive Pearl Harbor-like action on our forces in or near the Gulf, I don't see the justification for an outright attack on Iran for the masses. I think calls for impeachment -- assuming the world doesn't erupt into much worse than "just" a regional conflagration in the Mid-East -- would quickly follow an attack on Iran at this point.
So, I think the Bushies try something "reasonable" like blockading Iran, which will almost certainly elicit a large response from Iran and get the Bushies their desired justification for attacking Iran.
As for the 3 of 5 brigades and the 24,000 of the 40,000 troops with the mechanized brigades to be stationed between Baghdad and Iran, I think this has to be for trying to stop any Iranians invading Iraq following a U.S. blockade or bombing. No way are even the Bushies so stupid as to think they could take all of Iran, or even a small piece of it with 3 brigades, are they?
Actually, even being positioned between Baghdad and Iran in a defensive posture is a fool's errand. Let's look at the math -- 24,000 U.S. troops vs. 70 million Iranians, plus at least another 15,000,000 Iraqi Shi'ites much more likely to side with Iran than the U.S. Hmmm, what are the odds that the U.S. troops could triumph? Better yet, what are the odds that those U.S. troops would come home alive? I'd put those odds at none and none, respectively.
Bush attacks Iran, I expect that any large concentration of U.S. troops to the east of Baghdad, and even south of it, will be dead. Troops in Baghdad proper and the north and west will have odds as good as anybody to come through this, but not those up against the border. They are screwed if Bush pulls the trigger.
I've also read that a couple days ago the U.S.S. Stennis moved into the north Arabian Sea, supposedly to support operations in Afghanistan. Or are they getting into position? I kind of doubt that as the Nimitz has not arrived yet. Or, as the repositioning of the Stennis happened just after the 15 UK troops were released, could it have been a signal to Iran that we would like to talk, that we can ratchet down the threats? Or, maybe they are supporting operations in Afghanistan? Who can say, and that's a big part of the problem with crap like this. Communications through navy fleet movements is at best an imprecise language, and at worst, a provocative threat which could easily lead to military actions due to misunderstanding. Gunboat diplomacy isn't diplomacy at all.
If this action against Iran happens, it will be remembered as the absolute worst military and strategic mistake ever made, worse than Hitler in Russia, worse than Napoleon in Russia, worse than Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. And it is so obviously bad. Just look at those numbers, 24,000 vs. 85,000,000.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 11, 2007 10:19 AMBrian - the wargasm crowd would love those odds. They could reenact their 300 fantasies for real. Too bad they're losing the propaganda war.
Hostage taker, JohnT? Number one, the Brits were prisoners under arrest for allegedly encroaching in Iranian waters, not hostages. Number two, they were arrested by the local Revolutionary Guard, not Ahmadinejad, though he saw his chance to use them for propaganda purposes to tweak Bush through Blair. It worked, too, considering the fury coming from all sides, and the jeers from the comics - especially the Daily Show, which was hilarious, I might add.
I'm not saying it wasn't a tense situation; it had to be scary for the Brits, not knowing what might happen to them. But the Iranians made a great show of how well their prisoners were treated - including the videos of them playing ping pong and eating burgers and laughing.
Especially when contrasted with the news coming out today that the Iranian diplomat that had been "kidnapped in Iraq by Iraqi agents operating under the supervision of the CIA" had been tortured "day and night" and is supposedly being treated for "signs someone drilled holes in his feet as well as broke his nose, injured his ear and wounded his neck and back."
Obviously, Iran is going to play this embarassment
for all it's worth, so I'm a little skeptical. Still, the US response:
An unnamed US intelligence official also denied any claims of abuse, saying: "The CIA does not conduct or condone torture."
doesn't give me much confidence in our side, either.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 11, 2007 10:29 AMThe military told us today that they know the Iranians are training Iraqis...
I wonder if they're doing a better job then we are?
Posted by snark at April 11, 2007 10:31 AMDammit, snark, was I being logical again? How uncivil of me.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 11, 2007 10:34 AMWhat is this 'logical' of which you speak?
It's hard for me to understand through all my rage.
And my unhappiness.
Posted by snark at April 11, 2007 10:38 AMSay it, don't spray it, bud. Maybe you should check your meds before you have an aneurysm.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 11, 2007 10:48 AMThe military told us today that they know the Iranians are training Iraqis...
I wonder if they're doing a better job then we are?
I almost missed this one with all your ranting. Funny!
Posted by iamcoyote at April 11, 2007 10:51 AM**pop**
Posted by snark at April 11, 2007 10:51 AMHey Steve - long time reader, first time poster. Thanks for all your hard writing work.
I hope that you don't think I'm trollish for this comment - I definitely don't want to knock you for your hard work. The thing is this: I read last week that Russian sources pegged "a massive air attack" as slated to occur on Good Friday. I was on tenterhooks all last week. Before that, I had read Seymour Hersh in early 2007, the summer of 2006 (and the buildup to "will the October surprise be nuking Iran?")
I just wonder whether or not it really is going to happen. Is the presence of two, soon-to-be three, carrier groups and other ships absolutely indicative of a war? Could it all just be a bluff? Would Bush honestly believe that *anyone sane* would support his bombing Iran?
Spring 2003 was horrible, just because I thought that Bush was bluffing w/ Iraq too - and then, lo and behold, he was smirking on my TV and soldiers were marching into Baghdad. But I do believe that at that time he had the frenzied fear of a good majority of the country, not to mention a sort of national 9/11 PTSD, to give him carte blanche. I don't think he has that now.
Posted by Sarah at April 11, 2007 10:56 AMThat the US has declared it's intention to turn Baghdad into one giant prison and detain all young men of military age may explain the order from AlSadr to the Mahdi army to attack American troops. I expect the US supply lines that run from Kuwait to Baghdad through primarily Shiite territory will now come under sustained attack. Good night and good luck.
Posted by Gareth G at April 11, 2007 11:05 AMSarah, I hope it is a bluff, or only intended to bring some kind of diplomatic thing going. But, the situation is pretty ugly. We're talking more than just two or now three carrier groups. We're talking about three Nimitz-class carrier groups operating in the same general area, complete with missile destroyers and frigates and whatever subs go with all that, plus two smaller amphibious carrier groups, basically Marine carriers with helicopters, sub-hunting planes, and a handful of jets to serve "small-scale" landing and/or hospital operations. So, in reality, we currently have four carrier groups in or near the Gulf and a fifth one on its way, not just two with a third one on its way. Additionally, they're building up forces with whatever can be mustered in Iraq. If the Bushies are bluffing, then it's definitely working on me.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 11, 2007 11:08 AMRobert Naiman has a good diary up at Kos regarding actions we can take to avert preventive war on Iran:
Opponents of the Iran War Go Local by Robert Naiman
Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 09:07:03 AM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/11/115738/676
It also contains an interesting summation of Iran war legislation compiled by Just Foreign Policy. Is your Representative or Senator cosponsoring any of this important legislation? Mine aren't and will hear from me.
They should hear from us all and it should be deafening.
uhm except that the iranian shiites are NOT cooperating with the Iraqui sunnis, but thanks for playing General and Preznit der schrubenfhurer.
They will now wildly overreach to make up ANY reason to nuke Iran.
These people need to be impeached, jailed, hung whatever, just OUT OF POWER NOW or they really intend to start World War FINAL.
Posted by marblex at April 11, 2007 11:11 AMA huge attack on Iran is coming.
I think Iran's leaders wants to goad us into an aerial nuclear bombardment in order to unify their population against The Great Satan for generations.
And Bushco clearly wants to do it, because, well, it's the insane, reckless thing to do and that's their specialty.
So, it's going to happen. At least one side has to be against a war in order to prevent it.
Posted by euzoius at April 11, 2007 11:30 AMSarah, to tell you the truth, I'm not all that sure an attack is imminent, either. Sure, there are 3 carriers in the area, and Bush is trying to provoke some sort of incident that'll give him an excuse, but to still harp on the Brit sailors a moment, I kinda expected that to be the excuse. (I wasn't too worried about the April 6 date since it was a "leak" from "Russian intelligence" and not really that credible to me.)
But when Bush offered to help during the crisis by bombing, he was asked by Blair to back off, stop the escalating rhetoric, and tone down the war games by the US battle groups. Bush did it. Without even his poodle's support - in fact Blair publicly stated he would always deal with these situations with diplomacy, letting Bush know he wasn't ever going to be in on an attack - I don't think he's going to chance it totally on his own.
Brian, it's supposed to work on you. That's what bluffs are all about. Who's Bush really bluffing, I wonder, Iran or Congress?
I'm still worried at how easy it would be to start something - especially now that the furious pundits have telegraphed to the soldiers that a nice hostage situation on our side might help the cause to start the bombing of Iran. There's always the unhappy possibility of the place going to shit accidentally because it's so goddam crowded with battle groups.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 11, 2007 11:31 AMBush isn't going to attack Iran. He may want to. And he sure as hell wants the Iranians to think he's gonna. But he's not gonna.
Petraeus now wants to deploy five mechanized brigades and 40,000 troops south and east of Baghdad, with three of these brigades in between the city and Iran.
For a ground invasion? Is that what you're thinking Steve?
The level of death and destruction would make our Iraq occupation look like Sunday school.
Posted by snark at April 11, 2007 11:35 AMSince when did the Shiite Iranians provide support of any kind to the Sunni Iraqi insurgents, who are responsible for something like 90% of all of the attacks? Would that mean the Shiite Iraqi militias are totally incapable of doing anything military? That would be the thrust of this US military briefing coming out of Baghdad.
This sounds increasingly like the "Five O'Clock Follies" held in Saigon at the end of the Vietnam War - total disconnect from reality and pure spin. Our uniformed officer corps has really screwed this war up and haven't been able to do anything right at all. They blamed losing in Vietnam on the press's freedom to present whatever they wanted during the Vietnam War, so they have rigidly controlled the press in Iraq and they've still lost the press and the Iraq War. How incompetent can this group be?
Posted by PrahaPartizan at April 11, 2007 11:39 AMJust to be clear...
The claim is the Iranians are TEACHING the Iraqis HOW TO KILL US. Which implies that the Iranians are well versed in how to kill our mechanized forces. Anyone think they couldn't do more effectively in their own country what we can't seem to prevent their underlings from doing in Iraq?
We don't have the forces required to sustain the kinds of casualties we would incur.
Posted by snark at April 11, 2007 11:41 AMMSNBC was actually laughing at Bush's attempt to duck out on the War by appointing a War Czar. Nora OD said "isn't that what the Commander in Chief is supposed to be?" Ha, once again the Bush WH has been caught with their hands in the idiot jar. I also heard that three Carrier groups are now exercising off Guam. Are we fixin' to invade them also? I agree with snark on lack of sufficient force to withstand an Iranian ground retaliation, but I doubt very much that Bush/Cheney care one whittle about US casualties. Any day now we'll blow past 3300 dead GI's in Iraq.
Posted by T2 at April 11, 2007 11:56 AMWASHINGTON — The Pentagon will lengthen tours of duty for all active-duty Army units in Iraq to 15 months from the current 12 months as the military struggles to supply enough troops for the conflict, two defense officials said Wednesday.
From Huffpo. Gates is supposed to announce it shortly.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 11, 2007 12:06 PMThe shrub does not comprehend that by attacking Iran he will be starting a war that WE CAN NOT WIN. China and OPEC will ruin us by calling in all of those bonds that China is buying and OPEC selling us no more oil.
Posted by jwrjr at April 11, 2007 12:14 PM"They blamed losing in Vietnam on the press's freedom to present whatever they wanted during the Vietnam War, so they have rigidly controlled the press in Iraq and they've still lost the press and the Iraq War. How incompetent can this group be?
Completely incompetent. The military failed to learn the "Lessons of Vietnam" which are that no large nation can invade and occupy a smaller, very populous and educated nation without using a genocide that destroys most of the population of the invaded nation. Or, to put it another way, asymmetrric warfare is effective as a way of defeating a larger invading force when the defending natives are educated and numerous. To win you have to kill most of the natives.
The war in Iraq was doomed from the beginning because the invader/native ratio was too unfavorable from the start.
Some examples of the rule:
Persian Greek Wars 490 and 480-479 BC.
American Revolution
French-American-Vietnam War
Hitler's invasion of Russia
Algerian War
Russian-Afghanistan War
If we attack Iran, we may see a corollory of Salamis and Iran will simply rename the Arabian Gulf back to its historical name.
The natives of the Middle East are simply too numerous and smart for us to conquor with a few hundred thousand soldiers unless we simply nuke their populations so that the invader/native ratio is more favorable. That probably would not work either because of the generatins of blowback that it would spawn. If we nuke an Iranian city, one or more of ours will be nuked within a few years thereafter.
The whole middle east misadventure was simply doomed from the start!
Major General Caldwell, if you know that this training of Iraqi militias is taking place inside Iran, they why haven’t you sealed the border between the two countries?
Aw, back off Steve! We've only had four years to accomplish that.
Posted by bartcopfan at April 11, 2007 12:54 PMThese geniuses are constantly being amazed at how crafty these ragheads can be.
DeminNJ, my reaction to Iraq is the same as it was to the 1983 Beruit bombing, we're the Redcoats now (bitching that "they won't come out and fight us fair!").
[And I'm taking the term "ragheads" as drudging respect for those kicking our a$$e$.]
Posted by bartcopfan at April 11, 2007 01:12 PMI think Iran's leaders wants to goad us into an aerial nuclear bombardment in order to unify their population against The Great Satan for generations.
Gawd e, this would make Kristol's and all the other PNAC'ers day!
Posted by Seven of Six at April 11, 2007 01:16 PMWould Bush honestly believe that *anyone sane* would support his bombing Iran?
...But I do believe that at that time he had the frenzied fear of a good majority of the country, not to mention a sort of national 9/11 PTSD, to give him carte blanche. I don't think he has that now.
Gentle Sarah, I don't think W cares one whit about what "anyone sane" thinks. He has a constituency of One--W (hmmmm, maybe what he thinks God wants him to do, but, gosh, what a coincidence: what he wants to do and what he thinks God wants him to do have, thus far, been a perfect match!).
I would ask you for any, any evidence you can provide of a case where The Boy King has been told "no" and accepted it.
We are closer and closer to the situation where the drunk is insisting on trying to drive us home, with us knowing Dead Man's Curve is on the path. We have got to get the keys away and/or stay out of the damn car!
Posted by bartcopfan at April 11, 2007 01:24 PMBush isn't going to attack Iran. He may want to. And he sure as hell wants the Iranians to think he's gonna. But he's not gonna.
I hope you're right. But if I had to bet, experience tells me to bet on W "getting stoopid".
For a ground invasion?....
I don't think so--we've got no ground forces left--but we've certainly got naval and air power to blow people up. W likes breaking his toys. He doesn't care, but, American/coalition, Iraqi, and Iranian families will.
The level of death and destruction would make our Iraq occupation look like Sunday school.
Agreed, particularly keeping Steve Gilliard's comments (get well, dammit!) in mind about the Iraqi Shias' likely ability to close off our escape route from Baghdad south to Kuwait.
Christopher that's part of the message being given to the little hostage taker and his boss.
Bingo, John.
It's not a coincidence that the former hostages are British. It was going to be British or Australian hostages. The last two regimes Bush can count on for support to fan the flames of war with Iran.
Posted by Christopher at April 11, 2007 02:19 PM"If we nuke an Iranian city, one or more of ours will be nuked within a few years thereafter."
Nobody, and therein lies the fear for everyone. Once Pandora's Box is opened, then there is no going back to close the lid.
Attacking Iran would have worldwide repercussions, involving China, Russia, Israel and most likely Pakistan, India, and of course East Timor, who have had a hate on for Lubbock, Texas for three decades.
This would not be a stupid incursion by the US into Iran, any more than any of the brilliant attempts at short, definitive wars since 1945. You know, Korea, Vietnam, the Balkans, etc. It would be an extremely stupid and costly incursion, likely resulting in the dismissal of whatever generals over the rank of Brigadier, and a general slaughter of all competent non-commissioned officers.
Unfortunately, those Brain Surgeons Cheney and Bush, aided by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert may just think it would be a laugh.
Remember the recent house trips to Syria? We maybe able to connect that dot along this line. Two front wars involving Israel and Syria will quickly spread into uncontrollable Middle East fire storm.
Posted by FoolMeTwice at April 11, 2007 04:15 PMThe whole middle east misadventure was simply doomed from the start!
There was that brief moment when Iraqis had a functioning society without Saddam, but the Mad King, idiot son of George, permanently solved that problem.
Posted by phidipides at April 11, 2007 06:07 PM"Second, Petraeus now wants to deploy five mechanized brigades and 40,000 troops south and east of Baghdad, with three of these brigades in between the city and Iran."
This might help explain what Petraeus is doing:
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.
This article has an interesting map showing the location of the Iranian province of Khuzestan, which contains close to 90 percent of Iran's known oil reserves as well as one of Iran's most important oil shipment/terminal port cities on the Persian Gulf.
When viewed with this "location, location, location" in mind, Petraeus' positioning of these troops between Basra and Khuzestan indicates that Bush and Cheney plan on trying to preemptively seize Iran's primary oil producing province, possibly very, very soon.
Just a guess.
Posted by The Oracle at April 12, 2007 12:12 AMcoyote
You obviously don't know why I call him the little hostage taker. You need to do a little reseach on Iran. You are really screwed up.
i heard an interview with a '79 american hostage who said the iranian pres was there and overheard they would be killed soon, he knew the language.
do any of you guys have friends over there? my good friend is headed there soon. this guy was in the reserves for years, got out and then got back in over a year ago. married, 2 kids, and he volunteered for the slick willy campaign. i have no military experience but in dicussing iraq he thinks exactly like i do.
it will be interesting to see if his opinions change.