I think it’s worth noting that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announce they are going to Iran on the same day that Iranians invade Iraq. Sounds just a little too convenient for me. I reported yesterday that the British…

Thanks, Bob. Wouldn’t EFPs be of Iranian origin? But that doesn’t mean the Iranian RG planted them or were involved in the ambush.

I don’t know. There have “homegrown” EFPs of local origin, they just aren’t as effective against our armor. The British vehicle hit was a lightly armored, so I can’t judge anything based upon that bit of information.

And you’re right on your second point: to date, there is no indication at all from anything that I can find that directly indicts the Iranians in this attack.

Limerick on June 26, 2007 at 12:19 AM

Yeah, that makes sense. I guess that’s why I’m an armchair general.

O/T…My soldier knows where he’s going. I’ll wait to tell you that cause I’m not sure if it’s common knowledge yet. But he called me a little concerned about the loosening of the ROE’s. I explained to him that my concern, above him coming home safe, was his emotional health and dealing with what he is going to have to do. I told him not to second guess the Army’s rational. He should do as he is told and when he comes home, leave it there. I told him about the 7 boys that we killed going after the terrorists hiding behind them, and explained that we should have been doing this all along. I told him that the Muslim culture is a culture of death and any Muslim that tries to preserve his life is looked upon as less than a good Muslim. I also told him that these Iraqi’s have a responsibility to their country that they have abdicated. They allow the terrorists to hide in their homes and out of fear for their families keep silent about known IED’s etc. I told him that these people have the choice of dying for a good cause or a bad cause. Their freedom is a good cause and their fear of death is a bad cause. It is their choice to die like sheep allowing terrorists hiding behind them and he does not have to take any responsibility on himself for his actions that are within the ROE’s and military law. I know he will never murder anyone, and it’s because he is a Christian person that he would be affected by the accidental killing so-called innocents. I told him he needs to detach his conscience that he operates under in the real world from his duty as a warrior. The only conscience he should have as a soldier is that which is based on military expectations.

I related a story to him about a soldier who was manning a checkpoint when a female approached and refused to stop as commanded (in Iraqi and with signs at the checkpoint). The second he fired a warning shot, the gunner on the hummer opened up with his 50cal and cut her in half. When they checked her for intel, they found a white flag in her pocket. Well, this soldier is haunted by this event and blames himself for starting the firefight. I told my son that was BS! That woman escalated this event by not following orders. These people have no respect for human life and set these kind of scenarios up in order to screw with our troopers heads. They achieved their goal in this case because this soldier didn’t re-up and is fodder for the anti-war crowd. He needs to put the blame exactly where it belongs…..on the people who refuse to stand up for their own country and callously put his buddies in harms way for their own self preservation.

I wonder what you think of that. Matter of fact, I’d like to know what anyone thinks.

He had to run (he’s in Baqubah, and no doubt rather busy), and so I don’t have context for this update.

Why should they not so boldly move in? Our government, our population, our allies, etc…have all announced that we are leaving. Iran is just doing the logical thing. And they are probably already more entrenched than we realize.

What galls me is the blatant cowardice by our Congress has placed our military in extreme danger, guaranteeing more casualties and defeat. The pull-out mantra will ensure the deaths of many in Iraq. Their “support the troops; not the war” is pure illogical crap.

“Good. I’d prefer a stand up fight to all this sneakin around.”

Iblis on June 25, 2007 at 10:27 PM

Im with you.

We have hard proof that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps have crossed the border to attack us. It is very hard for us to strike back. All we can do is try to defend ourselves. We are badly on the back foot.”

The effeminate “Great Britain” that liberals have created: They don’t even know how to “strike back.”

Do us all a favor, “Great” Britain, and just pull out of Iraq. Because of your liberal, PC culture that has infiltrated your once great military, you have become a hindrance. You are actually encouraging enemies to boldly attack you.

Iran can’t afford a war. They are running out of fuel due to a lack of refining capacity and a lack of cash.

But if the article is correct, (which is what I’ve been assuming, perhaps incorrectly), we probably didn’t respond for political reasons, such as Iraq’s veto, as you suggested.

It seems unlikely, but perhaps we couldn’t respond in time. The restrictive ROE might be the culprit in that regard rather than our inability. Perhaps it’s only happened once or twice and we weren’t ready for it.

That was very diplomatic wording. The Sun is basically a “scandal sheet”. They would be the last ones the govt would leak that to if it were to be taken seriously.

So … the helicopters were carrying bombs? So we know exactly when they came in, where they went, AND what they were carrying but did absolutely nothing but watch (and report it to The Sun)? Possible, but not bloody likely.

A: not to attack the helicopters while they were on the ground in Iraq.

B: Not to collect the deposited Iranians after the helicopters left the area.

That leads me to believe that this could be crap. Unless there is some confirmation, I am leaning towards this is fiction and didn’t happen. There is no way we would simply sit there and watch this happen without at the very least pickup up the Iranians that were deposited by the helicopters. There is absolutely zero risk in doing that. Same with attacking the craft while they were on the ground.

Doesn’t make sense. Doesn’t even make sense in a “trying to avoid a larger conflict” sense. We have already picked up Iranians in various circumstances, this wouldn’t be anything new to pick these up as well.

The main problem with that theory is that Iran is killing and wounding our guys, and probably has been for a long time now. If Iraq turns out to be chiefly responsible for staying our hand… well, our command structure would still be to blame for allowing them that veto.

You may be right about Iraq’s veto, but I do think that it would be an escalation even though we would be within our rights. If our primary goal right now is to follow the course set out by the Iraq Study Group and withdraw, (or draw-down), then an attack on Iranian forces, even inside Iraq, would be heading in the opposite direction. On the other hand, by “leaking” this information, the eventual conclusion will be that we stop Iran by force if they refuse to back down. The reason we want them to stop, and why Iran doesn’t want to stop, is because they want to declare “victory” with the strongest hand they think we’ll let them get away with.

This is all predicated on the notion that our guys have probably had proof of Iran’s involvement for a long time now, (my opinion), and we are bringing the information to the public now for one of two reasons that I can think of: One, we are preparing to take care of the Iran problem, (I hope), or two, we are preparing to withdraw and want to eliminate or minimize Iran’s eventual “victory” claim.

Of course, I’m not sure I’m correct… this is just how I view the situation based on what little information I have.

Iran will either get the message or, hopefully, we will take appropriate actions. Whether or not we will follow through with the implied threat, we can only hope. So far it appears that Iran doesn’t believe we’ll follow through.

The only thing I can figure that makes sense is that we requested permission from the Iraqi govt to attack and the permission was denied for whatever reason. It might be more of a case of Iraq not wanting to start a war with Iran right now than the US or the British worrying about it.

My thoughts on this are that in addition to control of all or a portion of Iraq, Iran views us, (especially the British), as weak and would like to bloody us on the way out to bolster their eventual case for victory in the eyes of an all to significant portion of the world.

On the other hand, considering the updated information that Iran is flying in men and weapons instead of directly attacking our troops, it’s likely they’ve simply learned from experience that we will let them get away with it so as not to escalate the conflict.

From their perspective, if there are no consequences for their actions they might as well continue. The more desperate we appear for withdrawal, the bolder they are likely to become. If nothing else, it strengthens their hand at the bargaining table.