US supporting terrorists inside Iran ***Update: Hersh does full expose***

[Zebo]

http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=1906

Press Corner
US Funds Terror Groups to Sow Chaos in Iran
February 26, 2007
William Lowther and Colin Freeman

America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme.

In a move that reflects Washington's growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions.

The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime.

In the past year there has been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials.

Such incidents have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the north-west, the Ahwazi Arabs in the south-west, and the Baluchis in the south-east. Non-Persians make up nearly 40 per cent of Iran's 69 million population, with around 16 million Azeris, seven million Kurds, five million Ahwazis and one million Baluchis. Most Baluchis live over the border in Pakistan.

Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA's classified budget but is now "no great secret", according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.

His claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime."

Although Washington officially denies involvement in such activity, Teheran has long claimed to detect the hand of both America and Britain in attacks by guerrilla groups on its internal security forces.

Does the ends justify the means? Fighting an oppressive regime like Iran with terror and unrest?

Remember the last time we supported a group of terrorists in Afghanistan?

 

[BMW540I6speed]

It has been very noticeable that countries and leaders from Iran, Syria, have been widely referred to as ?our enemies? in BushCo. writings and speeches, which in turn spreads through the administration, and from there influences the mindset of the country and the terms of our internal debate

By using the provocative term ?enemy? they are doing the same thing as when they changed the name of the ?inheritance tax? to ?death tax? ? setting a frame for discussion before we even are aware we are in a debate.

Forty six years ago, in his inaugural address, President John Kennedy notably changed referring to the Soviet Union as "our enemy" and began referring to it as ?our adversary? when he said:

....Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction...

...So let us begin anew?remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate...

Kennedy did this during the middle of a very dangerous cold war in which we had already fought several proxy wars with the Soviet Union. He did it because an "enemy" is someone whom there is nothing left to discuss while an "adversary" is someone who opposes, but for whom force is not the only appropriate response.

Osama bin Laden is our "enemy", while Iran and Syria are our "adversaries". They have points of views and goals different than our own, but we do not know if they are beyond reason because we have not tried to reason with them.

The Bush administration uses only intimidation and force as tools of disagreement, automatically categorizing those opposed to us as "enemies". We are foolish as we allow BushCo, who see things only in terms of good/evil or black/white or friend/enemy to do our categorizing for us. There are other categories for countries besides "friends" and "enemies", and one of those is "adversary".

 

[Termagant]

Not to mention the US has renditioned terrorism suspects for "questioning" to Syrian authorities, such as the innocent Canadian man, so I guess they are sort of an ally in The Global War of Terror? And btw Iran has apparently detained some Al Qaeda affiliates.

 

[Aimster]

U.S has always fought Iran's regime using terrorists tactics.. they have been arming terrorist since the Saddam regime.

Now they aren't even doing anything about the group MEK who was the very group that took U.S hostages (it wasn't the Iranian regime).

 

[Lemon law]

The Kurdish question is especially explosive---there are large and significant Kurdish populations in Iran and Iraq---and likewise Turkey---with Turkey being especially hypersensitive about the Kurds.
And Turkey is likely to get violent if the Kurds even remotely threaten them.---and could even result in a Turkey Iran alliance. As for Iran---they are likely to rub our terrorism in at the UN--where we have enough problems already and doom any Iranian sanctions.

And many Kurds want a larger Kurdish State---and have been screwed every time when bardering their help to major powers---and Lawrence of Arabia is still a sore point.

But in the Iraqi oil lottery both the southern Shia and the northern Kurds live in proximity to large reserves---and the Sunni's in the center have squat. And ever since gulf war one the Kurds have had defacto autonomy in Iraq-----its dangerous to aid the Kurds too much---the Kurds have their own agenda and their agenda is likely to step on the toes of everyone else.

As usual---GWB&co. are playing with powerful forces they barely understand and are likely to be burned by---but for them its still a what me worry.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Aimster
U.S has always fought Iran's regime using terrorists tactics.. they have been arming terrorist since the Saddam regime.

Now they aren't even doing anything about the group MEK who was the very group that took U.S hostages (it wasn't the Iranian regime).

You think the Israeli Lobby is big? It's nothing compared to the Saudi Lobby who can whisper sweet nothings in the Presidents ear anytime, anywhere...today we see thier use of this chimera of one vast Shi'a Nuclear belligerent state and feed to President Bush that we must remain in Iraq to protect the Sunni and them, the Saudi Royals. Bush obeys like the good boy he is no matter who he has to side with. How does Bush get in touch with all these terrorists? Saudi Arabia provides the numbers.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Zebo
http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=1906

Press Corner
US Funds Terror Groups to Sow Chaos in Iran
February 26, 2007
William Lowther and Colin Freeman

America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme.

In a move that reflects Washington's growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions.

The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime.

In the past year there has been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials.

Such incidents have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the north-west, the Ahwazi Arabs in the south-west, and the Baluchis in the south-east. Non-Persians make up nearly 40 per cent of Iran's 69 million population, with around 16 million Azeris, seven million Kurds, five million Ahwazis and one million Baluchis. Most Baluchis live over the border in Pakistan.

Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA's classified budget but is now "no great secret", according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.

His claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime."

Although Washington officially denies involvement in such activity, Teheran has long claimed to detect the hand of both America and Britain in attacks by guerrilla groups on its internal security forces.

Does the ends justify the means? Fighting an oppressive regime like Iran with terror and unrest?

Remember the last time we supported a group of terrorists in Afghanistan?

You and the "Free Muslims Coalition" (yeah, that's a REAL reliable source) are confusing separatists/insurgents with terrorists.

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Zebo
http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=1906

Press Corner
US Funds Terror Groups to Sow Chaos in Iran
February 26, 2007
William Lowther and Colin Freeman

America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme.

In a move that reflects Washington's growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions.

The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime.

In the past year there has been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials.

Such incidents have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the north-west, the Ahwazi Arabs in the south-west, and the Baluchis in the south-east. Non-Persians make up nearly 40 per cent of Iran's 69 million population, with around 16 million Azeris, seven million Kurds, five million Ahwazis and one million Baluchis. Most Baluchis live over the border in Pakistan.

Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA's classified budget but is now "no great secret", according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.

His claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime."

Although Washington officially denies involvement in such activity, Teheran has long claimed to detect the hand of both America and Britain in attacks by guerrilla groups on its internal security forces.

Does the ends justify the means? Fighting an oppressive regime like Iran with terror and unrest?

Remember the last time we supported a group of terrorists in Afghanistan?

You and the "Free Muslims Coalition" (yeah, that's a REAL reliable source) are confusing separatists/insurgents with terrorists.

What is the difference?

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Aimster
U.S has always fought Iran's regime using terrorists tactics.. they have been arming terrorist since the Saddam regime.

Now they aren't even doing anything about the group MEK who was the very group that took U.S hostages (it wasn't the Iranian regime).

You think the Israeli Lobby is big? It's nothing compared to the Saudi Lobby who can whisper sweet nothings in the Presidents ear anytime, anywhere...today we see thier use of this chimera of one vast Shi'a Nuclear belligerent state and feed to President Bush that we must remain in Iraq to protect the Sunni and them, the Saudi Royals. Bush obeys like the good boy he is no matter who he has to side with. How does Bush get in touch with all these terrorists? Saudi Arabia provides the numbers.

Things are very very sad when we have to compare the Israeli Lobby to the Saudi Lobby in terms of who have more influence on our foreign policy :

Whatever happened to the "American Lobby"?

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Aimster
U.S has always fought Iran's regime using terrorists tactics.. they have been arming terrorist since the Saddam regime.

Now they aren't even doing anything about the group MEK who was the very group that took U.S hostages (it wasn't the Iranian regime).

You think the Israeli Lobby is big? It's nothing compared to the Saudi Lobby who can whisper sweet nothings in the Presidents ear anytime, anywhere...today we see thier use of this chimera of one vast Shi'a Nuclear belligerent state and feed to President Bush that we must remain in Iraq to protect the Sunni and them, the Saudi Royals. Bush obeys like the good boy he is no matter who he has to side with. How does Bush get in touch with all these terrorists? Saudi Arabia provides the numbers.

Things are very very sad when we have to compare the Israeli Lobby to the Saudi Lobby in terms of who have more influence on our foreign policy :

Whatever happened to the "American Lobby"?

The Saudis are huge, they own a combined total of 11% of our ENTIRE GDP. They even own some buildings in Tel Aviv, opposite the Opera House.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Zebo
http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=1906

Press Corner
US Funds Terror Groups to Sow Chaos in Iran
February 26, 2007
William Lowther and Colin Freeman

America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme.

In a move that reflects Washington's growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions.

The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime.

In the past year there has been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials.

Such incidents have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the north-west, the Ahwazi Arabs in the south-west, and the Baluchis in the south-east. Non-Persians make up nearly 40 per cent of Iran's 69 million population, with around 16 million Azeris, seven million Kurds, five million Ahwazis and one million Baluchis. Most Baluchis live over the border in Pakistan.

Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA's classified budget but is now "no great secret", according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.

His claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime."

Although Washington officially denies involvement in such activity, Teheran has long claimed to detect the hand of both America and Britain in attacks by guerrilla groups on its internal security forces.

Does the ends justify the means? Fighting an oppressive regime like Iran with terror and unrest?

Remember the last time we supported a group of terrorists in Afghanistan?

You and the "Free Muslims Coalition" (yeah, that's a REAL reliable source) are confusing separatists/insurgents with terrorists.

What is the difference?

One targets military in an attempt to overthrow governments or free themselves from governments, the other targets civilians in an attempt to achieve their goals.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: ntdz
One targets military in an attempt to overthrow governments or free themselves from governments, the other targets civilians in an attempt to achieve their goals.

Does it mean your master Bush and his propaganda department have been lying when they call the Iraqi insurgents "terrorists"? Or that it would be OK for the Iranians to fund groups here in the US who kill policemen, military, and government officials?

Pathetic doesn't quite say it.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: fornax

Originally posted by: ntdz
One targets military in an attempt to overthrow governments or free themselves from governments, the other targets civilians in an attempt to achieve their goals.

Does it mean your master Bush and his propaganda department have been lying when they call the Iraqi insurgents "terrorists"? Or that it would be OK for the Iranians to fund groups here in the US who kill policemen, military, and government officials?

Pathetic doesn't quite say it.

Uh, some are insurgents, some are terrorists. I bet 20-25 times more civilians have died than US troops, so no they aren't lying. Pathetic doesn't quite say how off your reasoning is. How many civilians have died in Iran to these "separatists"?

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Zebo
http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=1906

Press Corner
US Funds Terror Groups to Sow Chaos in Iran
February 26, 2007
William Lowther and Colin Freeman

America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme.

In a move that reflects Washington's growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions.

The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime.

In the past year there has been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials.

Such incidents have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the north-west, the Ahwazi Arabs in the south-west, and the Baluchis in the south-east. Non-Persians make up nearly 40 per cent of Iran's 69 million population, with around 16 million Azeris, seven million Kurds, five million Ahwazis and one million Baluchis. Most Baluchis live over the border in Pakistan.

Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA's classified budget but is now "no great secret", according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.

His claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime."

Although Washington officially denies involvement in such activity, Teheran has long claimed to detect the hand of both America and Britain in attacks by guerrilla groups on its internal security forces.

Does the ends justify the means? Fighting an oppressive regime like Iran with terror and unrest?

Remember the last time we supported a group of terrorists in Afghanistan?

Nice source. Freemuslims.org?? LMAO.

Check out the little piece I bolded for you. I seem to recall the liberals calling bullshit when we used anonymous sources about Iran supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq. Likewise I'm calling bullshit on some former gov't official (I'm sure he has no agenda....lol). Where's the real evidence that this is happening?

 

[palehorse]

proof? smoking gun(s)? videos? pictures? official testimony of captured US personnel?

I see that it's much easier to convince the left of US involvement in Iran than it is to convince you of Iranian involvement in Iraq... how very telling!

freemuslims.org?! you're going to have to do better than that!

I'll tell you what... I'm going to hold each of you to the same burden of proof that you require of our Admin in Iraq, ok? fair enough?

 

[Jhhnn]

Dunno that it's real or not, but it's consistent with what the Bushies have done, and with what they say they're doing.

And, uhh, Fred Burton is a vice pres of Stratfor, a source quoted rather consistently by the rightwing in this very forum...

Terrorism is merely a tactic, anyway, a means to what the perps see as a greater end... Does anybody think that the American Right wouldn't stoop to such tactics, given the past in places like Central and South America? Does the "Salvador Option" ring any bells? Guatemalan genocide? Contras? Argentina and Chile's desapreciados? Mujahedin?

Not to mention our Israeli friends...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Dunno that it's real or not, but it's consistent with what the Bushies have done, and with what they say they're doing.

And, uhh, Fred Burton is a vice pres of Stratfor, a source quoted rather consistently by the rightwing in this very forum...

Terrorism is merely a tactic, anyway, a means to what the perps see as a greater end... Does anybody think that the American Right wouldn't stoop to such tactics, given the past in places like Central and South America? Does the "Salvador Option" ring any bells? Guatemalan genocide? Contras? Argentina and Chile's desapreciados? Mujahedin?

Not to mention our Israeli friends...

you can say ALL of that, but at the same time you find it impossible to admit that Iran may be aiding the insurgents in Iraq with weapons, training, and money.... wow.

If that's not the best definition of "Blame America First," I don't know what is...

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn


And, uhh, Fred Burton is a vice pres of Stratfor, a source quoted rather consistently by the rightwing in this very forum...

And he gives nothing but a broad generalization that this could possily fit our MO. Nothing but theory and conjecture at this point.

Originally posted by: Every liberal here

Show me the proof!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
proof? smoking gun(s)? videos? pictures? official testimony of captured US personnel?

I see that it's much easier to convince the left of US involvement in Iran than it is to convince you of Iranian involvement in Iraq... how very telling!

freemuslims.org?! you're going to have to do better than that!

I'll tell you what... I'm going to hold each of you to the same burden of proof that you require of our Admin in Iraq, ok? fair enough?

In all fairness, the current administration has been shown time and again to be pathological liars. The same cannot be said -- yet -- about freemuslims.org. There is also a difference in consequence. The level of evidence necessary to justify a head-shaking or a finger-wagging is far, far lower than that required to justify another war that will kill tens of thousands of innocent people and squander still more hundreds of billions of dollars.

That said, I will treat this story as possible, but not proven ... just like all the BushCo accusations against Iran.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
you can say ALL of that, but at the same time you find it impossible to admit that Iran may be aiding the insurgents in Iraq with weapons, training, and money.... wow.

If that's not a perfect example of a straw man, I don't know what is.

Don't suppose you can show us any examples of Jhhnn or other P&N'ers denying the possibility Iran may be aiding Iraqi insurgents? All I've seen is people demanding you back your accusations with independent, credible evidence, something you have consistently failed to do.

If that's not the best definition of "Blame America First," I don't know what is...

Zap! Bam! You really knocked the stuffing out of that straw man. Booya!

 

[Lemon law]

There is a huge world pot in the mid-east poker game---and by the mid-1950's the Western interests had stacked the deck. Setting up first a royal house of Saud and later engineering the collapse of the Iranian democracy and its replacement by the Shah of Iran. But still, any ruling coalition must keep the local population happy---and the Shah's answer was brutal repression and a state dominated by the secret police. With Iran and Saudi Arabia firmly marching to the western drums, Iraq with no real ports was totally dependent on Iran's domination of the Persian gulf. And Saudi Arabia was not isolated because Iraq was Sunni controlled.

Then, out of the blue, the hated Shah fell--catching the world by total surprise. And a shia dominated religious theocracy rapidly replaced the Shah. And Washington has been in a snit ever since regarding mid-east policy. Mistake number one was backing Saddam as our man in the mid-east---a police state dictator every bit as bad as the Shah---at exactly the time the population balance of Iraq trended more and more towards a Shia majority.---but there is nothing worse than a tin pot dictator who won't stay bought---and has ideas of his own---as for Saddam---we hired him and we fired him---and thus followed Gulf war one and two. And no joy yet for the West---Iraq has been difficult---with Iraqi oil effectively removed from world markets.

Sailing serenely along has been the house of Faud---somewhat disturbed to find itself now isolated by shia dominated governments
to the North and East---while its almost total Sunni population watches their Sunni brethren get ethnically cleansed and humiliated
in Iraq. Worse yet, Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam, the homeland of Ossama Bin Laden who used to be a national hero, and also the only place where the Wahabist sect of Islam has a strong following. At the same time the house of Faud is somewhat mortibund and divided---investing the throne in a very old man whose role is being a compromise and do nothing leader. While the old guard conducts business as usual. While its oil revenues can no longer support all its growing populations in the life style they would like to stay accustomed to---but still leaving enough leisure time to contemplate the fact their old main line oil customers are not too politically popular with the local population due to their policies in both Iraq and Israel. At the same time, growing oil demand in China and India may make them the mainline customers of the near future.

The point I am trying to make is that if a energetic firebrand Nasser type emerges with the message that comrade---we have been betrayed by the house of Saud---the USA could lose Saudi Arabia at about the same speed we lost the Shah---all these things became risks when GWB&co messed with the powerful political forces and human emotions driving mid-east politics. And may become certainties if Iraq goes civil war---or Iran is attacked.---a time may soon come where its impossible for various countries to merely sit on the sidelines and watch.-----and no one will acccept the GWB&co.-- sorry--oh gee wilikers--I had no idea that would happen.

On the bright side--it also presents an unprecedented opportunity of some sort of a pro-western diplomatic initiative put forth by a future President that is a polar opposite of GWB----with some sellable peace plan that mostly solves the Israeli question and forms the basis of a more stable mid-east. But time is rapidly running out and will get shorter if GWB&co insists on playing with triggers in the form of aiding the Kurds in tweaking the nose of Iran.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Bowfinger said:

In all fairness, the current administration has been shown time and again to be pathological liars. The same cannot be said -- yet -- about freemuslims.org. There is also a difference in consequence. The level of evidence necessary to justify a head-shaking or a finger-wagging is far, far lower than that required to justify another war that will kill tens of thousands of innocent people and squander still more hundreds of billions of dollars.

That said, I will treat this story as possible, but not proven ... just like all the BushCo accusations against Iran.

Indeed...

What a lot of folks don't know, and what the mainstream media has missed, is that our professional military establishment turned against the Iraq war a couple of years ago and has been chaffing under the stupidity of the Bush-Rumsfeld Pentagon leadership.

The Army Times (which is privately owned by the Gannett Company and derives much of its advertising from military vendors and its circulation privledges from base commanders) never would have called for Rumsfeld's resignation/termination last November unless a substantial portion of active military officers and Pentagon suppliers (companies run, by and large, by ex-military managers) had not already turned against him and were privately calling for his dismissal.

But it goes beyond just Rumsfeld and Bush. The senior military establishment (both active and retired officers) are frustrated and furious that the politicans have gotten us into another Vietnam.

Coming out of the Vietman debacle 30 years ago, young officers in their 20s vowed to themselves and to their fellow officers never to let America get into another protracted land war of occupation against an indigenous enemy supported by the local population. Those young officers are now the military's senior commanders, and they are mad as Hell that the neo-conservatives have gotten us into this Iraq mess.

Yes, the Pentagon and the military leadership were gung-ho to invade Iraq because they also had been fed (and believed) the same cooked intelligence about WMD, and - like the rest of us - they bought the fantasy of a quick invasion and transition to a civilian government elected by a grateful Iraqi people yearning for a Western-style secular liberal democracy.

Gen. Pace and most of the other uniformed leadership are good Americans. They believe in the Constitution and subordination of the military to our civilian government. When they were told by the President AND by the Congress to invade Iraq, they followed orders. To do otherwise would be a court-marital offense.

But now - like two-thirds of the rest of Americans - they are angry that they got bamboozled by a bunch of narcisstic ideologues and religious fanatics.

A graduate of US Naval Academy, Gen. Pace is part of that fraternity of Vietnam vets who didn't want to repeat the mistakes of their predecessors. (He was awared a Bronze Star for combat bravery in 'Nam).

My guess is he is pretty pissed at those who lied and fabricated "intelligence" to justify the Iraq invasion, and that he's hearing plenty of the same from his peers, both those still in uniform and those running the companies supplying the military.

It is also my guess is that Defense Sect. Gates is on the same page as Gen. Pace and that they are sending their own separate messages to VP Cheney, to the neo-cons and to the religious fanatics who are beating the drums for a war with Iran. That message is:

You can't count on the Pentagon or the military to fall into line with a public relations campaign of fake and half-baked intelligence to justify war with Iran.

Three important recent news events seem to confirm this view that Gates and Pace are both trying to head off Cheney:

First, the Pace contradiction of the White House and Baghdad attempts to tie the Iranian government directly to attacks on and deaths of US troops in Iraq.

Second, the Pace public contradiction of pro-war Administration and Congressional advocates to the charge that public debate and a congressional resolution against the "surge" would hurt the morale of our troops and embolden the enemy.

Finally, the very public release of a Pentagon internal report that called the Pentagon's pre-war intelligence operation (headed by a prominent neo-con)"inappropriate."

What's happening here is Pace - and perhaps Gates - are sending their own separate messages to Cheney and his Hawks that they can't expect that the military establishment is going to permit them to drag America into a wider war in the Middle East.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Bowfinger said:

In all fairness, the current administration has been shown time and again to be pathological liars. The same cannot be said -- yet -- about freemuslims.org. There is also a difference in consequence. The level of evidence necessary to justify a head-shaking or a finger-wagging is far, far lower than that required to justify another war that will kill tens of thousands of innocent people and squander still more hundreds of billions of dollars.

That said, I will treat this story as possible, but not proven ... just like all the BushCo accusations against Iran.

Indeed...

What a lot of folks don't know, and what the mainstream media has missed, is that our professional military establishment turned against the Iraq war a couple of years ago and has been chaffing under the stupidity of the Bush-Rumsfeld Pentagon leadership.

The Army Times (which is privately owned by the Gannett Company and derives much of its advertising from military vendors and its circulation privledges from base commanders) never would have called for Rumsfeld's resignation/termination last November unless a substantial portion of active military officers and Pentagon suppliers (companies run, by and large, by ex-military managers) had not already turned against him and were privately calling for his dismissal.

But it goes beyond just Rumsfeld and Bush. The senior military establishment (both active and retired officers) are frustrated and furious that the politicans have gotten us into another Vietnam.

Coming out of the Vietman debacle 30 years ago, young officers in their 20s vowed to themselves and to their fellow officers never to let America get into another protracted land war of occupation against an indigenous enemy supported by the local population. Those young officers are now the military's senior commanders, and they are mad as Hell that the neo-conservatives have gotten us into this Iraq mess.

Yes, the Pentagon and the military leadership were gung-ho to invade Iraq because they also had been fed (and believed) the same cooked intelligence about WMD, and - like the rest of us - they bought the fantasy of a quick invasion and transition to a civilian government elected by a grateful Iraqi people yearning for a Western-style secular liberal democracy.

Gen. Pace and most of the other uniformed leadership are good Americans. They believe in the Constitution and subordination of the military to our civilian government. When they were told by the President AND by the Congress to invade Iraq, they followed orders. To do otherwise would be a court-marital offense.

But now - like two-thirds of the rest of Americans - they are angry that they got bamboozled by a bunch of narcisstic ideologues and religious fanatics.

A graduate of US Naval Academy, Gen. Pace is part of that fraternity of Vietnam vets who didn't want to repeat the mistakes of their predecessors. (He was awared a Bronze Star for combat bravery in 'Nam).

My guess is he is pretty pissed at those who lied and fabricated "intelligence" to justify the Iraq invasion, and that he's hearing plenty of the same from his peers, both those still in uniform and those running the companies supplying the military.

It is also my guess is that Defense Sect. Gates is on the same page as Gen. Pace and that they are sending their own separate messages to VP Cheney, to the neo-cons and to the religious fanatics who are beating the drums for a war with Iran. That message is:

You can't count on the Pentagon or the military to fall into line with a public relations campaign of fake and half-baked intelligence to justify war with Iran.

Three important recent news events seem to confirm this view that Gates and Pace are both trying to head off Cheney:

First, the Pace contradiction of the White House and Baghdad attempts to tie the Iranian government directly to attacks on and deaths of US troops in Iraq.

Second, the Pace public contradiction of pro-war Administration and Congressional advocates to the charge that public debate and a congressional resolution against the "surge" would hurt the morale of our troops and embolden the enemy.

Finally, the very public release of a Pentagon internal report that called the Pentagon's pre-war intelligence operation (headed by a prominent neo-con)"inappropriate."

What's happening here is Pace - and perhaps Gates - are sending their own separate messages to Cheney and his Hawks that they can't expect that the military establishment is going to permit them to drag America into a wider war in the Middle East.

I hope you are right.

 

[Zebo]

Much more detailed report from Hersh. I have read all 15 pages and I have never, ever heard of foreign policy so bizarre that nations actually switch enemies in mid war and begin supporting their attackers while attacking their defenders.

Cliffs: Just so ya'll know the new game plan:

Our new allies supported both financially and with weapons are:

AlQaeda and similar groups
Sunnis attacking US troops
Muslim brotherhood gangs in Lebanon
Saudi Arabia
Taliban and Salifists in Waziristan, Pakistan(northern and southern)
Israel and a unified Hamas/Fatah coalition

In order to fight the rising Shi'a Cresent defined in our new enemies:

Syria
the Iraqi Shiite government
Iran
Hezbolla (if they don't protect the Labanese Christains and stop attacks and kidnappings on Israel)


No wonder Gates reminisces the simplicity of the cold war.

Oh and the plan is to create a static civil war between Middle Eastern Sunni and Shiites that is region wide and effected via terrorists cells undermining our enemies governments and public support(refer to list above) working in conjunction with intel operatives from the US and Israel.

Oh, and we wanna provoke Iran into war too.

None of this will pass though normal channels like congress ala Iran/Contra.

Don't worry about all the terrorist cells that we are funding either. The Saudis assure us that this time they can control them.

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/070305fa_fact_hersh

 

[piasabird]

If there is any group that deserves our support in Iraq it is first and foremost the Kurds. They are the only group that are organized enough to stand up for themselves.