U.S. FINALLY RELEASES FIVE IRANIAN DIPLOMATS HELD CAPTIVES FOR OVER TWO YEARS

The U.S. military has finally released five Iranian diplomats after more than two years in a military prison in Iraq. The U.S. never produced any evidence as to why they were held or what their alleged crime was. I maintain that the whole episode was just a ploy of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to provoke the Iranian government into some action that Bush & Co. could claim was a casus belli and thus give the U.S. a chance to attack Iran.

Steven Lee Myers writes in today's The New York Times:

"The American military and a senior aide to President Obama offered few details about the release or its timing. A military spokesman here, Capt. Brad Kimberly, said in a statement that the release had come “at the request of the government of Iraq” and complied with the security agreement between the United States and Iraq which requires the eventual transfer of all detainees in American custody."

No matter what the U.S. military claims, until and unless it releases evidence showing the complicity of these five Iranians in illegal actions in Iraq, I will believe that they were arrested and imprisoned solely on the bias of the U.S. government against Iran and against the natural influence Iranians have in the neighboring country of Iraq.

Gen. Odierno tries to paint the Iranians as part of an effort to fund and train an anti-American insurgency.

Writes Myers:

"The American military has not detailed its evidence against the men, so the extent of their involvement in violence in Iraq, if any, may never be known.

"However, senior American military and diplomatic officials here continue to accuse Iran — or at least parts of its security forces and secret services — of supporting insurgent groups.

"At a news conference on June 30, the top American commander here, Gen. Ray Odierno, criticized Iran in blunt terms.

"“Iran is still supporting, funding, training surrogates who operate inside of Iraq — flat out,” he said. “They have not stopped. And I don’t think they will stop. I think they will continue to do that because they are also concerned, in my opinion, of where Iraq is headed. They want to try to gain influence here, and they will continue to do that. I think many of the attacks in Baghdad are from individuals that have been, in fact, funded or trained by the Iranians.”"

Note the words of Odierno. "Iran is . . . training surrogates who operate inside of Iraq . . . " [The Iranians] are . . . concerned . . . {about] where Iraq is headed." "They want to try to gain influence here." My reaction to all of this is, so what? I disagree with Steven Lee Myers that these are "blunt terms." I think rather they are fudging words trying to convey the impression without any evidence that Iranians are meddling. But is "meddling" a crime or an act of war? I don't think so.

Odierno also "thinks" that many of the attacks are from individuals that have been trained by the Iranians. But what does this mean?

Furthermore, Odierno thinks his assertions about the Iranians are true, but this word "thinks" surely implies that he does not know for sure. And even if Iraqi insurgents were funded or trained by Iranians, this statement still means nothing. Perhaps the individuals attended Islamic school in Iran to study the Quran or maybe they took language training and studied Farsi.

Odierno's statement is just fluff. But it is dangerous insofar as it tries to demonize Iran and the Iranians on the basis of conjecture and Odierno's own opinion which conceivably is riddled with conjecture.

ODIERNO ACCUSES IRAN OF "INFLUENCE," FAILS TO OFFER ANY EVIDENCE

Once again, we hear the drumbeat of those trying to demonize Iran and make it the "enemy" of the United States. This time from Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.


Ernesto Londono writes in The Washington Post:

"Gen. Ray Odierno said in an interview that Iran, a Shiite Islamic nation eyed warily by the United States and Sunni Arab countries, is working publicly and covertly to undermine the status-of-forces agreement as officials from Iraq and the United States report nearing a deal that must be ratified by Iraq's parliament."

But like similar charges by U.S. military officials against Iran, this one has no proof. We are asked to accept Gen. Odierno's word.

Reports Londono:

"Odierno said he had no definitive proof of the bribes, but added that "there are many intelligence reports" that suggest Iranians are "coming in to pay off people to vote against it." The reports have not been made public."

Remember that Iran and Iraq share a contiguous border, that many Iraqis are Shiites like most Iranians, and that many current Iraqi leaders fled to Iran for refuge during Saddam Hussein's regime. So there are naturally close ties between Iran and the present government of Iraq. That Iran would be exercising political influence should not be surprising. However, it should not be used to stir up anger in the United States against Iran.

We need to see any "evidence" in order to judge Odierno's charges and the level of Iran's influence, if any. Is the influence legitimate or illegitimate? Without evidence, Odierno should quit stirring up the anti-Iranian resentment pot.

WHERE IS EVIDENCE TO BACK UP CHARGES THAT IRAN IS SUPPLYING IEDS?

In today's The Washington Post, Robin Wright reports that the U.S. will free nine Iranians captured in Iraq and accused of fomenting trouble on what seems trumped-up charges.

"The status of the captured Iranians is so sensitive -- both diplomatically and militarily -- that their status has been reviewed all the way up to the White House. The decision to release nine Iranians reflects a shift in position. Last month, Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the top commander of day-to-day operations in Iraq, said he would recommend that the five Iranians captured in Irbil not be released.

"Militarily, we should hold on to them," he told reporters and editors at The Washington Post on Oct. 5. But last week, Odierno said there had been a sharp decline in one type of the roadside bombs, the so-called explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs. The heavy metal projectile that makes up the penetrator strikes with speed and power to shatter through the steel of armored Humvees."

We all know that the detention of the Iranians is just political shenanigans originating from the Bush/Cheney antipathy towards Iran. There has been no proof that these Iranian captives did anything wrong in Iraq. Most of them are diplomats invited into Iraq by Iraqi Premier Al-Maliki. Yet the United States went out of its way to grab them in January and hold them for more than nine months.

Writes Robin Wright:

"But the announcement also came as officials announced that five U.S. troops were killed by roadside bombs believed to have originated in Iran (emphasis added), which raised the U.S. combat death toll this year to 851 2 -- making it the deadliest year yet for the U.S. military, according to the Web site icasualties.org, which tracks military casualties. In 2004, 849 U.S. troops were killed."

I object to Robin Wright's unfounded assertions in her report that it is commonly believed that Iran is supplying IEDs and EFPs. Robin Wright is too ready to put credence in unsubstantiated claims of Bush/Cheney and the U.S. generals that Iran is supplying roadside bombs. She writes in today's story.


I ask on what basis the generals believe the bombs originated in Iran and were provided by Iran? Where is the evidence for the world to see? So far there has been no believable evidence. This campaign is just trying to lay blame on Iran for screw-ups of Bush in his unjustified war against Iraq. Anyone can fashion these explosive devices. All that is needed is some modern tool and die. There are probably thousands of workshops in Baghdad that can fashion them and supply them to insurgents.

Bush is trying to salvage his tattered reputation by blaming outsiders for the mess he has made.
I object to Robin Wright mouthing and repeating the talking points that Iran is to blame.

U.S. MILITARY CLAIMS SURGE REDUCES ATTACKS; IRAQIS FEEL OTHERWISE

Gen. Ray Odierno claims that attacks in Baghdad have falled from 32 to 12 since the start of 2007, more than 50%.

But is this the right metric to use? Would it not be better to compare August 2007 to August 2006 and see if there is indeed a drop. For example, AP reports the numbers of Iraqi civilian deaths (not limited to Baghdad) and show a large jump up in comparing August 2006 to August 2007. See the charts on Talking Points Memo.

Also the BBC reports that most Iraqis think they are less safe and that the surge has made life worse:

"[A] recent BBC/ABC poll of Iraqis found about 70% believe security had deteriorated since the US surge.

"According to the poll, more than two-thirds said that in terms of security and the conditions for political dialogue, reconstruction and economic development the surge had made things worse. "

NO EVIDENCE THAT IRAN IS SUPPLYING ARMS OR TRAINING TO SHIITE MILITIAS IN IRAQ

Juan Cole points out Gareth Porter's article on the spin of the U.S. military following the Bush/Cheney line that Iran is aiding and abetting Shiite militias which in turn are attacking and killing U.S. troops.

After four years of trying, the Bush/Cheney gang and their generals have not shown or exhibited one shred of evidence that Iran is training or equipping Iraqi militia. Furthermore, as Gareth Porter indicates, in spite of the U.S. claim that Iran is supplying EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) to Iraqi fighters to drive the Americans out, the U.S. military has discovered and uncovered mini-factories in garages and basements in Iraq itself manufacturing such weapons.

The evidence shows no Iranian involvement, although it does show increased resistance on the part of Al Sadr's Mahdi Army to the stepped-up patrols and raids of U.S. troops predominantly in Sadr City, a Shiite enclave in Baghdad.

The drumbeat of "evidence" alleged by the U.S. military, including people like Gen. Ray Odierno and Kevin Bergner, turns out to be nothing more than the unsubstantiated party line of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. The latter would like nothing less than bombing Iran and starting another war before they leave office in January 2009. The U.S. generals become their facilitators in demonizing Iran and making Iran out to be the "enemy."

U.S. FORCES LAUNCH NEW OFFENSIVE AGAINST BOTH SHIA AND SUNNI INSURGENCIES

After writing (see my post just below) about Nathaniel Fick's article in today's Washington Post in which Fick posits four principles to "win" in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I see this article in today's BBC.com on the U.S. military launching a new offensive against both Sunni and Shia insurgencies.

Writes the BBC:

"Operation Phantom Strike was being staged throughout Iraq, specifically targeting al-Qaeda-linked militants and also Iranian-backed groups, it said . . .

"It consists of simultaneous operations throughout Iraq focused on pursuing remaining AQI (al-Qaeda in Iraq) terrorists and Iranian-supported extremists elements," it said.

"Lt Gen Ray Odierno, the US second-in-command in Iraq, said that his aim was "to continue to pressure AQI and other extremist elements throughout Iraq"."

So The U.S. Army hires Fick to lecture about counter-insurgency, but then disregards all of his principles to launch a new offensive with guns and bombs and war planes against insurgent groups in Iraq. This is too surreal. Who is in charge over there? How does this fit in with Fick's four principles? It would seem that these last-ditch military actions are politically motivated by Bush to try to obtain the faintest signs of "progress," although definitely not progress if you accept Fick's main principles.

Well, at least, Odierno doesn't exactly conflate Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) with Shiite militias, although he seems to be verging on it. It has been done before by Bush and his gang including chief military spokesman General Bergner (former White House aide to Bush) when they try to say that Iran is providing deadly shaped penetrating charges to AQI and other Sunni insurgent groups, as if Shiite Iran would supply arms to rival Sunnis who have been known to kill Shia Iraqis just because they were not Sunni.

Juan Cole has some insightful comments on the whole George Bush spin towards AQI in his post today in Informed Comment.

"Sunni Arab guerrillas deployed an explosively formed projectile (a kind of roadside bomb) against 4 soldiers who had come in a humvee to investigate the sniping death of a fifth soldier. All four were killed. Unfortunately the LA Times calls the guerrillas "al-Qaeda-allied." This terminology is from the Bush administration lexicon. I very much doubt that the LA Times knows whether the group that set the bomb is allied with al-Qaeda or not. Indeed, for all we know, this cell belonged to the Baath Party.

"Note too that the Sunni Arab neighborhoods have the explosively formed projectiles, just as do the Shiite neighborhoods. Iran is not giving them to Sunnis, and certainly not to 'al-Qaeda-allied' Sunnis. Ipso facto, Iran cannot be the only source of EFPs, and it is not established except by allegation and innuendo that they are a source at all. (If the Sunni Arab guerrillas can make EFPs, so could Iraqi Shiites).

"It is always surprising what you can conclusively deduce just from reading the newspapers without the spin that the administration and the Pentagon manages to implant in the stories."

PENTAGON ARMING AND SUPPLYING SHIITE MILITIAS WHEN IT LOSES CONTROL OF WEAPONS

Oh this is good. I posted this morning on Gen. Ray Odierno claiming that Iran is arming and training and supplying Iraqi Shiite militias in their fight against the U.S. forces. Later on today comes news that the Defense Department cannot locate hundreds of thousands of weapons, such as AK -47s supplied to the Iraqi government.

Nick Childs writes for the BBC:

"The GAO says that, of some 185,000 assault rifles and 170,000 pistols that the Pentagon says it supplied to the Iraqi security forces, it can account for less than half: there is a discrepancy of 110,000 in the case of AK-47s, and 80,000 pistols.

"The gaps in the figures for body armour and helmets are even bigger - only 80,000 out of a total of 215,000 sets of body armour accounted for, and only 25,000 out of 140,000 helmets."

So let's put two and two together. Odierno claims Iran is arming Shiite militias who attack U.S. troops. But the Pentagon admits that it allowed some 165,000 weapons to go "missing." Why then must Iran have anything to do with "arming" and "supplying" Shiite militias. All that supplying and arming is being done by none other than the Pentagon and the Defense Department. There is no reason or necessity to lay the blame on Iran. Put it on those culpable, the generals and the colonels in the Pentagon.

U.S. GENERAL ACCUSES IRAN OF SUPPLYING, TRAINING SHIITES - NO EVIDENCE OFFERED

Hamid Ahmed writes for the AP that U.S. generals in Iraq are accusing Iran of funding and training an supplying Shiite Iraqis in their attacks against the U.S. occupation.


"Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the U.S. second-in-command, said Sunday that rogue Shiite militiamen with Iranian weapons and training launched 73 percent of the attacks that killed or wounded American forces last month in Baghdad, nearly double the figure six months earlier.
Odierno did not provide a total number of militia attacks but said Iran has sharply increased its support for the fighters ahead of a September report to Congress on progress in Iraq, leading to the surge in rogue militia action."



First, where is the evidence that these Shiite militias are using Iranian weapons? The evidence produced so far is quite ambiguous and murky. How does Odierno know that "Iran has sharply increased its support for the fighters?" This is all spin and innuendo. The top generals have received their talking points from Bush and Cheney, so that's what they give out at "news conferences." Odierno's spin is just another attempt to prepare the American people for war against Iran. First demonize the opponent, then drop the bombs.

Odierno goes on to make more unfounded assertions. Writes Ahmed:

""Because of the effect we've had on al-Qaida in Iraq and the success against them and the Sunni insurgency, it's now shifted and so we are focusing very much more on the special groups of the Jaish al-Mahdi here in Baghdad," he told The Associated Press in an interview, referring to the Arabic term for the Mahdi Army.


""They tend to be breakaway groups from Sadr who tend to be funded by Iran, armed by Iran and trained by Iran," he said."

So how do these groups get "trained" by Iran? Are there camps run in Iran that are "boot camps" for Iraqis. Do Iraqi militiamen go to Iran for several weeks for "training"? And how does Iran supply the weapons and "arm" the militiamen? Are their Iranian trucks back and forth delivering AK-47's and IED's? This is all so much spin, without a shred of evidence, all done for political purposes.