I have a strange feeling that we have known about this for a long time. For some reason now the Administration has to get serious about the war so they are pointing out the guilty. Hey, don't forget Syria. I am sure there is documentation that would back up that account also.

Iraq comes out today and says that they believe that Iran is 'probably' behind the deaths of some of the Americans, but that they will not allow Iraq to be a battle ground for U.S. and Iran. TOO LATE.

Does Iraq only think Iraqi's are killing Iraqi's and only Iranians are killing Americans? Iraqi's and the Syrians are behind all of it with the help of the media and the liberal left in western countries.

Iran and Syria talk strong about their position. Because they have been reassurred by the media and Democrats that they have their back.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at January 31, 2007 4:53 PM

Iran has been killing American soldiers in iraq with shaped IEDs a coupla years already..
March 06 story..
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/popup?id=1693355&content=&page=2

"..says Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism chief and an ABC News consultant. "I think it's very hard to escape the conclusion that, in all probability, the Iranian government is knowingly killing U.S. troops."

'Very Lethal'

U.S. intelligence officials say Iran is using the bombs(IEDs) as a way to drive up U.S. casualties in Iraq but without provoking a direct confrontation.

John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Feb. 2, saying, "Tehran's intention to inflict pain on the United States and Iraq has been constrained by its caution to avoid giving Washington an excuse to attack it."

The U.S. Army has embarked on a crash effort to find ways to stop the bombs, according to an unclassified report issued last month. The devices are easily hidden and detonated by motion detectors — like those used in garden security lights — that cannot be jammed.

When exploded, the copper disc becomes a molten liquid bullet that can penetrate the thickest armor the United States has. "

http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1692347&page=1

Posted by: Madduck at January 31, 2007 5:10 PM

"After overthrowing the Taliban, the U.S. soon returned to the illusion of peace and security and confusion of purpose "

Problem is...the first thing you have to be aware of, is that the Northern Alliance which replaced the Taliban - is "the cure that is WORSE than the disease."

Tribal savages - violent - with virulent hatred towards other tribals - with other peoples - if you can remember the photos of the N.A. savages mutilating the dead bodies of those they killed.

They were and are worse, much worse. At least the Taliban protected their women who obeayed them - BUT the N.A. savages went into the homes and dragged out women and girls to rape them- and the U.S. troops either stood by and let them or could NOT control them.

I never trusted the Northern Alliance. We through in our lot with the wrong side.

TODAY - THE WOMEN UNDER THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE ARE IN MUCH WORSE, MUCH WORSE CONDITIONS.

Don't be fooled by those BBC or other programs showing token schools where women or girls are attending. That was ONLY one of a handful - and how long ago was the program filmed - that those token schools may now be closed.

Today, women in Afghanistan are - in their own homes afraid for their lives. It's a matter of "damned if you do and damned if you don't."
Such virulent hatred men there have for the human female.

Posted by: allat at January 31, 2007 5:30 PM

US Army Mobilization WWI

" World War I

The United States entered World War I almost completely unprepared: the National Defense Act which Congress had passed in 1916 had provided the basis of a mobilization plan, not an actual army. In early 1917 the country had only 210,000 men under arms, a third of them National Guardsmen who had been called up the previous summer to serve on the Mexican border. The Army had no permanent tactical organization above the level of the regiment and lacked adequate quantities of artillery, machine guns, tanks, modern aircraft, and even gas masks. Its General Staff organization was not designed to cope with the logistical and operational problems presented by a major conflict, and at the direction of the Wilson administration it had made no war plans. The Army had no intelligence organization.

Within seventeen months, however, the country had transformed itself into a fighting machine. With the help of the draft, the United States raised an Army of 4 million men; half of this great force was transported to France, where it provided the decisive margin that led to victory over Imperial Germany and its allies."

American Expeditionary Force

"By June 1917, there were 14,000 US soldiers in France and by May of the next year there were one million American troops. "

What was different was a sense of urgency, will, and a nation that believed in its own survival and victory as morally right. With those, its easy to train 500,000 or 1 million troops in 12 months. We were doing it over 2 million a year in WWII with half the population.

We can train an army to finish up the Middle East and Central Asia and win before Bush leaves office. The time from April 6. 1917, US Congress Declared War on Germany to Nov 11, 1917, Victory was 19 months. They don't teach those dates in leftist universities.

re Thomas Holsinger on “The Case for Invading Iran”

Posted by: Old Atlantic at January 31, 2007 5:31 PM

Rainbow Division Website

quote

RAINBOW DIVISION -- WORLD WAR I

The 42nd Rainbow Division was formed in August 1917 of National Guard units from 26 states and the District of Columbia. After Chief of Staff Major Douglas MacArthur remarked that the Division "would stretch over the whole country like a rainbow," the coalesced national guard units were christened Rainbow Division. As the war progressed Douglas MacArthur was promoted to commander of the 84th Brigade and finally to commander of the Rainbow Division. Its four infantry regiments were respectively 165th (formerly New York's 69th); 166th (formerly Ohio's 4th); 167th (formerly Alabama's 4th); and 168th (formerly Iowa's 3rd). The field artillery, machine gun, ambulance, hospital, and other units originated in other states from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

The Division saw its first action in February 1918 fighting alongside the French. The battles continued throughout the following months and on July 14, 1918 the final German offensive was contained by the 4th French Army, in which the Rainbow Division played a prominent role at the famous Battle of the Champagne. Many bloody battles and great victories followed until the Germans were finally defeated. Battles included those in the Chateau-Thierry salient where Rainbow's poet, Joyce Kilmer was killed; St. Mihiel; Verdun front and Argonne, where Rainbowmen engaged in the final battle of WW I. German occupation duty followed.

end quote

“Increasing the size of the Marine Corps, he added, could be done only by 1,000 to 2,000 troops per year over an extended period.”

General Peter Pace. Guess he never read about General Douglas MacArthur in World War I.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at January 31, 2007 5:58 PM

Peter Pace quote referenced here:

“Marine Corps May Need to Grow, General Says”

Posted by: Old Atlantic at January 31, 2007 6:00 PM

They attacked our embassy, Carter did nothing. Their proxies bombed our marine barracks and murdered 241 Americans, Reagan did nothing. They have murdered hundreds of Americans in Iraq with their shaped charges, Bush has done nothing. Now, we would have to first fight a civil war against our own MSM, political left and fellow travelers before he could ever muster the courage to respond to ahmadnutjob. The iranian mohametans have sized us up and found us to be a harmless enemy, just as the Israelis have found us to be a treacherous friend. Jefferson, Washington, Adams, we are truly ashamed.

Posted by: Infidel33 at January 31, 2007 6:03 PM

MeanieMoe, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe we are supposed to be living in a Constitutional Republic with democratically elected government. It also means, to me, that the majority rules and is not subjected to the whims and whines of the minorities, nor does it mean we should take advantage of them neither.

Tom

Posted by: Marinetbryant at January 31, 2007 6:57 PM

Old Atlantic, here's my two cents:
The 82nd Division was formed in 1917. Just like the Rainbow Division, the 82nd contained soldiers from all over the country, hence the name All American Division and the AA on the shoulder patch. Alvin York was a one of its more famous soldiers.

The sense of urgency in WW1 was only because the Russians dropped out of the war and all those Eastern Front troops would be available to use against the French and British. Americans were desperately needed.

In WW2, the sense of urgency came from the possibilty that Japanese troops could be landing in Hawaii or California. The first few months of the war in the Pacific there was one defeat after another at Japanese hands. My late mother told me that people were actually scared.

Posted by: Pelayo at January 31, 2007 7:37 PM

Bush has conducted two disastrous wars under the banner of the "Forward Strategy of Freedom" and "Just War Theory". Instead of defeating Islamic totalitarian power centers immediately, he's opted to altruistically bring "freedom" to Islam. But, neither of these countries are interested in freedom and neither is Iran. As a result, we've wasted 5 years, 3000 lives, and hundreds of billions but the jihadis are more emboldened than ever--and why shouldn't they be? Iran can screw around in Latin America with every expectation that Teheran is perfectly safe. Bush has shown no interest in attacking and defeating Islamic totalitarianism. Nothing has been done to convince the jihadis that their dreams can't be accomplished. We've done the exact opposite.

If Bush wants to destroy the Iranian Revolution, I'm all for it. But please, no "Iranian Freedom" nonsense and leave the f'ing soccer balls at home. But, I think Bush would puke on himself from moral terror of doing anything serious even though a fanatic death cult is coming at us. Bush along with all the other "leaders" in Washington, are paralyzed; they don't know (or are more likely, evading) who the enemy is and where they're located.

If Bush does do anything against Iran, I'd want to see our troops out of Iraq. Now or after we leave, Iraq is a lost cause and a catastrophic failure--it never had a chance anyway--"Iraqi Freedom" was a farse to start with. I can't find a way to justify staying in Iraq or Afghanistan. Getting a bunch of kids killed in the fake WOT is immoral in the extreme. If Bush does decide to piddle around with Iran, he'll probably just succeed in making them angrier and more determined than ever to kill us (if that's possible) but without doing any serious damage.

If we want to fight, let's bring everything up to the line, plan and go--and be ready to go all the way. If we're going to survive, we must face the fear, stop running away and turn around and fight. And, please forget about "tyrant rights."

Here's one of the few people making sense on this issue.
No Substitue for Victory: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism by John Lewis.

Posted by: MelM at January 31, 2007 7:50 PM

"My late mother told me that people were actually scared."
Posted by: Pelayo at January 31, 2007 07:37 PM

Thanks Pelayo for this important wisdom from your mother. Its something for us to remember. We don't want to wait until another 9-11 for us to get scared enough to act. We need to act now while we can defeat Iran at low cost, not until after they have a defensive pact with Russia.

The Democrats expose us to risk from Iran by limiting war options of President Bush. If we do hot pursuit into Iran for some incident or they retaliate for our actions against them in Iraq by shooting an anti-ship missile at a Nimitz class carrier, we can lose 5700 people in one shot.

If we do a ground invasion, and pull our ships out, we might lose 200 to 2000 killed. By limiting us to retaliating to a small level, the Democrats actually will cost us 5 to 20 thousand killed at sea. We also let Iran use its subs at a time of its choosing.

Anything other than an immediate ground invasion of Iran exposes us to unacceptable risks. This is because we can defeat Iran at low cost by ground, but they can retaliate against our ships until we occupy them on the ground.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at January 31, 2007 7:56 PM

MelM, Islam is totalitarianism.

Posted by: Pelayo at January 31, 2007 7:58 PM

Here's a book for someone to write. It's subject is our current view of our potential for success in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israeli/Palestinian peace.

Title: "State of Delusion"

This is what the "Forward Strategy of Freedom" and "Just War Theory" have brought us.

Posted by: MelM at January 31, 2007 8:04 PM

Are Democrats encouraging Iran to form a pact with Russia by sending a message of division and retreat?

Middle East Myopic Retreat Will Have Higher Losses

The above link argues that a retreat from the Middle East will replicate our myopic policy in the first half of the 20th century when we lost 500,000 killed. When we switched to confronting foes forward, we lost 100,000 in Vietnam and Korea.

Those were forward engagements at the periphery. The result was our death rate went down by a factor of 5. Are the Democrats about to push out death rate back up to the first half of the 20th century rate? Even higher?

Posted by: Old Atlantic at January 31, 2007 8:34 PM

Oh boy... we are in for a bumpy ride!

The US needs to take down the Mullah Regime. Perhaps by going after them now, it will quell the sectarian violence amongst Sunni's in Iraq. Afterall, the Sunni insurgets seem to think that the US unfairly supports the shiite?

Its going to be tough for Bush to do this with his loss of credibility and poor leadership skills. My prediction is that Israel will be the first to strike.

Old Atlantic: How can Iran take a carrier down? Carriers are heavily protected with submarines and other ships around it. In addition, carriers have 2 levels of anti-missle capabilities.

Posted by: StopAhmadinejad at January 31, 2007 8:52 PM

If we go back to the beginning, I said, first, it would be Afghanistan, and then Iraq and Iran. Peter Jennings said it would be the whole of Islam, but everyone knows, the whole of Islam is not at war, only the authorities in charge are at war. Looking at the attacks on Israel back in Desert Storm, it's obvious now that Saddam didn't have the right kind of "Scud" missiles to attack with, but I questioned in where he got this technology from ? I see now, Iran had to be involved.

Posted by: Jeff at January 31, 2007 9:16 PM

Just between us kids, they have been actively engaged with us since 2003. It's taken this long to admit it.

Posted by: longtime lurker at February 1, 2007 4:25 AM

Old Atlantic: How can Iran take a carrier down? Carriers are heavily protected with submarines and other ships around it. In addition, carriers have 2 levels of anti-missle capabilities.

Posted by: StopAhmadinejad

But have they got anti-nuke capabilities?
The Russians have been supplying the latest in missile hardware to their jihadist pals in Iran.
The Sunburn missile, capable of mach 3 is possibly obsolete by now, they will have better.
Expect a suicide(one way, double the range) air mission carrying nuclear missiles.
I'll leave the exact range to the experts.

The Russians and Chinese are the true enemies here.
Iran is a front and they will take much of the heat, the bloody morons.
Russia and China have been planning this a while.

My guess is that those in charge are acting like deer in the headlights because that is exactly what we are.
Deer in the headlights.

Queue Russian apologists.
Frank(better deal for Putin)?, rouge?

Posted by: Mike_W at February 1, 2007 5:41 AM

In Iraq (Mosul?) we detained 5 Iranian operatives last week. Iran's response was to kidnap and kill 5 American soldiers in a very well planned ruse. This is how Iran talks to us. Via military actions not the bullshit words that lawyers and diplomats are enamored with

Posted by: dennisw at February 1, 2007 6:44 AM

THE need of the time is an USA-Europe-Israeli-Indian axis (or call it Christian-Jews-Hindu axis) to battle the cancer of Jihad becasue if not controlled now it will spread and spread and one day it may be too late.

In short all these religion dont hate each other, but Islam hates all these three religion and uniting is neccasry to fight the cancer

Posted by: Indiana_jones at February 1, 2007 6:40 PM