Planning Iran Invasion?

[whitesoxmurph]

A few things...

Both Blankley and Hersh are a bit off base.

1) Winodj is correct the war on terror is not a declared war, so Blankleys case against Hersh does not standup. (The Big Hurts Foot is on more solid ground).

2) Hersh on the other hand makes a leap in logic from the fact that there are most likely a few Spec Ops troops on the ground in Iran for Recon and Target ID purposes to a massive task force roaming around the outskirts of Tehran doing the Hokey Pokey. If there are troops on the ground in Iran it is probably a couple of 2-4 man teams and no more. A larger force would be to easily detected.

3) Hersh makes it seem like he has inside info, but everything he says is simple logic, an Infil through Afganistan is the safest route with the least number of people milling around herding goats The Gulf of Oman or the Persian Gulf have to much traffic and there is to much going on in neighboring Iraq.

4) Iran does not have to smuggle in a dirty bomb, all they have to do is smuggle in a few pounds of nuclear material ( which anyone crossing into CA, AZ or TX from Mexico could carry on their backs) and make the bomb here in the good old USA.

5) If that did happen and we did believe that Iran was the culprit, they could do very little to prevent us from taking out most of their land based missiles and aircraft. ( and would be done strickly with conventional weapons).

6) Even if they did get off one of their long range missiles, the chance of them actually hitting anything is remote. This missile would be aimed at Isreal as everyone knows. (Maybe we will all be lucky and it will over shoot its target and land in Paris or Wrigley Field)

7) The military is under as much, if not more congressional oversight than the CIA. Spying goes on all the time, and has since 1775.

[FlaSoxxJim]

It doesn't bother me at all.  However, if one American soldier performing his duty in Iran is caught or killed due to Hersch's need to spew conjecture...THEN I would have a problem.

 

On the other hand, many, many American soldiers being blown to little bits due to Bush's need to spew lies as to why we went to war... That we're OK with??

[Rex Kickass]

Thank you very much.

 

2. I'm not arguing that Hersh may be off base on some of the nuts and bolts of his vague operations detail, but his track record is generally pretty good.

 

4.-5. I don't understand why anyone is even worried about Iran bringing a dirty bomb in this country. It would be literal state suicide. People are looking for a reason to take Iran out. A lot of people would argue that we already have that reason. The fear of Iran going nuclear is not a nuclear Iran but rather a nuclear region. If Iran has a bomb, Egypt will want a bomb, Syria will want a bomb, Turkey will want a bomb, and so on. Many of these countries had nuclear programs previously and its never a good idea to see proliferation in unstable regions. In fact, this could be part of the reason that Israel has never declared its nuclear arsenal. Probably it feels the best way to never have to use it in defense is to never have to admit that it has the bomb in the first place. The concern here isn't a nuclear detonation. The concern here is nuclear proliferation. Unfortunately the US has a poor track record over the last four years of acting to prevent this proliferation. (See North Korea and Iran). Not that I'm saying the last ten years have been any better (See India and Pakistan).

 

7. Military intelligence is not subject to Congressional oversight beyond the budget. I don't believe Congress is entitled to any information regarding what military spooks uncover overseas as opposed to the CIA. In the event that military action of some significance takes place, it would be very difficult for the Congress to follow the paper trail to explain why we went in the first place. Doing spook work this way creates an opaque internal review system which would remove the checks and balances from the system. Multiple intelligence sources are fine, as long as the intelligence is reviewable by members of the legislative branch as well.

 

I am most disturbed, however, about Blankley literally calling for a jourrnalist, something he's never been to be put to death for reporting on a significant change in the way the government does business. He has the right to say it under the first amendment, but what a jackass. If Eleanor Clift or Paul Begala called for Bob Novak's execution for what he did in compromising a CIA agent's identity in 2003, the outrage on the other side would be deafening... and they'd probably lose their job. As it is, two other reporters who didn't go to print with that story are under contempt of court orders for not revealing sources in that story that they didn't write. Yet Novak isn't... interesting.

 

A few things...

Both Blankley and Hersh are a bit off base. 

1) Winodj is correct the war on terror is not a declared war, so Blankleys case against Hersh does not standup. (The Big Hurts Foot is on more solid ground). 

2) Hersh on the other hand makes a leap in logic from the fact that there are most likely a few Spec Ops troops on the ground in Iran for Recon and Target ID purposes to a massive task force roaming around the outskirts of Tehran doing the Hokey Pokey. If there are troops on the ground in Iran it is probably a couple of 2-4 man teams and no more. A larger force would be to easily detected.

3) Hersh makes it seem like he has inside info, but everything he says is simple logic, an Infil through Afganistan is the safest route with the least number of people milling around herding goats The Gulf of Oman or the Persian Gulf have to much traffic and there is to much going on in neighboring Iraq.

4) Iran does not have to smuggle in a dirty bomb, all they have to do is smuggle in a few pounds of nuclear material ( which anyone crossing into CA, AZ or TX from Mexico could carry on their backs) and make the bomb here in the good old USA.

5) If that did happen and we did believe that Iran was the culprit, they could do very little to prevent us from taking out most of their land based missiles and aircraft. ( and would be done strickly with conventional weapons).

6) Even if they did get off one of their long range missiles, the chance of them actually hitting anything is remote. This missile would be aimed at Isreal as everyone knows. (Maybe we will all be lucky and it will over shoot its target and land in Paris or Wrigley Field)

7) The military is under as much, if not more congressional oversight than the CIA. Spying goes on all the time, and has since 1775.

[southsider2k5]

Wino with all due respect, on your middle point you are thinking too much like an American. We don't comprehend suicide missions the same way that Muslims do. It didn't matter to Bin Laden that he he was going to risk his organization and his safety to strike at the US, and it isn't that hard to envision either Al Qaeda or another splinter group of its ilk putting a dirty bomb into a cargo ship and sailing it right into NY or Chicago or LA or anywhere else, and blowing it up. Iran has already labeled us the great Satan for 25 years now, all it takes is one group who has taken a lifetime of this information to get the motivation and financing to pull off an operation like this. And you know as well as I do how s***ty our security is at certian facilities. I honestly don't think the fundimentalists are as sane as you give them credit for.

[Rex Kickass]

Now, with all due respect, you aren't looking at this as a political scientist either. What you are misunderstanding is that Al-Qaeda is not a rogue wing of the Iranian state. Although they may tolerate an Al-Qaeda presence in their state as a matter of political expediency and security, they do not hold the same sway there that they did in Afghanistan or even do now in US occupied Iraq.

 

As unpopular as this sounds, the nature of countering trans-global terror is infact inherently an international criminal investigation. You can't manhandle state sovereignty to guard against every threat because the stakes there are too high. Its a risk assessment situation. This is a situation where diplomacy and possibly a tightening of US embargo against Iran could do wonders to producing a situation that would be better for combatting terror. If the US embargo was tightened to not allow US businesses to do business as a multinational in Iran, or not allow multinationals with serious US operations to do the same. It's a more effective stick because an Iranian government already dealing with pretty massive outcry over its repressive social policy would have a crumbling economy to deal with which would ultimately only infuriate more people to revolt against the Iranian revolution.

 

At the same time, a policy of limited engagement with Iran may do wonders in terms of getting the help necessary to more closely monitor non-state elements that seek to do us harm and operate within their borders.

 

Sadly the Bush administration has tried neither of these tactics because I don't feel that they adequately understand the nature of the threat. They have reacted in a very cold war fashion to a very non-cold war threat. You don't win this fight with a smash and grab policy.

[southsider2k5]

Al Qaeda was just an example. Iran has had their own group of clerics stirring the pot ever since the Revolution in 1979. It isn't that big of a stretch to imagine groups of the same breed operating in Iran. They have had the same religious upbringings in the madrasses, they have had the same America=Satan lessons, they have watched the horrors of Iraq on Al Jazzera, there is plenty of hate there to fuel these kind of groups. And they don't have to be government sponsored or condoned. As long as the clerics in charge of purity approve, the government is impotent to stop them.

[Soxy]

So, a Muslim friend of mine pointed out that the islamic word for satan can also be translated as tempter. Consequently, it doesn't necessarily mean that US is the root of all evil, but more that it's trying to tempt the MidEast away from the traditional Islamic virtues and culture. I'm not saying it's a great idea to call countries Satan, but in that context it isn't as bad....

 

History of Satan

[FlaSoxxJim]

So, a Muslim friend of mine pointed out that the islamic word for satan can also be translated as tempter. Consequently, it doesn't necessarily mean that US is the root of all evil, but more that it's trying to tempt the MidEast away from the traditional Islamic virtues and culture. I'm not saying it's a great idea to call countries Satan, but in that context it isn't as bad....

 

History of Satan

 

This bit from that site is a great assessment of the OT role satan played

 

Satan appears in the Torah at a fairly early point, but not as we know him today. In the Old Testament, Satan is sort of the John Ashcroft of God's administration, an unpleasant figure who nevertheless works within the system. His first major supporting role comes in the Book of Job, when he prosecutes the title character with a series of hardships as part of God's anti-sin initiative.

 

Recalling my dusty theology, Satan comes from the Greek 'satanos' which translated literally means "missing the mark." In that context, the tempter in Job, and the western world as tempter of the Muslum world makes sense.

[Soxy]

Speaking of Satan, Funny little cultural booboo.

[Rex Kickass]

Al Qaeda was just an example.  Iran has had their own group of clerics stirring the pot ever since the Revolution in 1979.  It isn't that big of a stretch to imagine groups of the same breed operating in Iran.  They have had the same religious upbringings in the madrasses, they have had the same America=Satan lessons, they have watched the horrors of Iraq on Al Jazzera, there is plenty of hate there to fuel these kind of groups.  And they don't have to be government sponsored or condoned.  As long as the clerics in charge of purity approve, the government is impotent to stop them.

 

Actually, they are. They have been. There's always a large difference between Rhetoric and action. Islamist states are no exception.

[YASNY]

Ok. We have a nation that is thumbing it's nose at the world by continuing it's nuclear program. This nation is also very anti-America. Our military intelligence SHOULD be trying to gather information. If Iran does something stupid, you'd all blame our incompetent president. :headshake

[Rex Kickass]

You're missing the point, its not that we're gathering intelligence. It's the method in which we're doing it. You can not rewrite the way the government works without approval from those who represent the people that the government is supposed to be of.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

You're missing the point, its not that we're gathering intelligence. It's the method in which we're doing it. You can not rewrite the way the government works without approval from those who represent the people that the government is supposed to be of.

 

 

How do you know, if these reports are in fact true, that Congress doesn't already know about it? It's not like they blurt out to everyone what our covert ops are......unlike a certain reporter.

[YASNY]

You're missing the point, its not that we're gathering intelligence. It's the method in which we're doing it. You can not rewrite the way the government works without approval from those who represent the people that the government is supposed to be of.

 

The only way to get real inside intelligence is "boots on the ground". I think you're the one missing the point.

[southsider2k5]

The only way to get real inside intelligence is "boots on the ground".  I think you're the one missing the point.

 

US"Do you you guys have anything you aren't supposed to?"

 

Iran"No"

 

US"Are you sure?"

 

Iran"Yes"

[Rex Kickass]

You mean Bob Novak?

 

They wouldn't know about it, because they wouldn't know where to ask for the information. That's the point. Reforming the CIA is pointless if the administration is going to supercede that with another intelligence arm that it informs noone about.

 

Ever thought about how reporters find out about this stuff? They find out about it because people involved find it completely distasteful and against the true interest and character of the American democratic traditions that we've built up upon.

 

It's not enough to just win this "war". It's only enough to win this "war" without sacrificing the values we were fighting for in the first place.

[YASNY]

US"Do you you guys have anything you aren't supposed to?"

 

Iran"No"

 

US"Are you sure?"

 

Iran"Yes"

 

 

That ought to do the job.

[YASNY]

From your President:

 

Ladies and gentlemen, we have determined that Iran might be experimenting with nuclear weaponry.  We'd like your permission to covertly place military intelligence personel in country to investigate the possibilities.  We will have a national referendum on the matter to make sure we are not offending the majority of Americans.

 

:headshake

[FlaSoxxJim]

It's not enough to just win this "war". It's only enough to win this "war" without sacrificing the values we were fighting for in the first place.

 

 

Friggin' moralist....

[Rex Kickass]

Along the lines of Hersh's article. The Washington Post today has a great story talking about the whole expansion of Defense Department intelligence.

 

The link is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...005Jan22_2.html

 

The juicy bits are here:

 

Under Title 10, for example, the Defense Department must report to Congress all "deployment orders," or formal instructions from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to position U.S. forces for combat. But guidelines issued this month by Undersecretary for Intelligence Stephen A. Cambone state that special operations forces may "conduct clandestine HUMINT operations . . . before publication" of a deployment order, rendering notification unnecessary. Pentagon lawyers also define the "war on terror" as ongoing, indefinite and global in scope. That analysis effectively discards the limitation of the defense secretary's war powers to times and places of imminent combat.

 

Under Title 50, all departments of the executive branch are obliged to keep Congress "fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities." The law exempts "traditional . . . military activities" and their "routine support." Advisers said Rumsfeld, after requesting a fresh legal review by the Pentagon's general counsel, interprets "traditional" and "routine" more expansively than his predecessors.

 

"Operations the CIA runs have one set of restrictions and oversight, and the military has another," said a Republican member of Congress with a substantial role in national security oversight, declining to speak publicly against political allies. "It sounds like there's an angle here of, 'Let's get around having any oversight by having the military do something that normally the [CIA] does, and not tell anybody.' That immediately raises all kinds of red flags for me. Why aren't they telling us?"

[whitesoxmurph]

wino - Under Title 10, recon and target dentification would not be covered. Title 10 relates to deployment orders and formal instructions (orders) for troops in combat or troops that in imminent danger of going into combat. The very purpose of these Spec Ops troops is to remain concealed and undetected while they do their jobs. The only way they could violate Title 10 under these circumstances, would be to disobey a direct order i.e. their mission plan and engage the Iranians. The only exception to this would be the general rule of engagement to fire only when fired upon, in which case their mission would still be a failure as the opposition found out about them.

 

Under Title 50 I would vigorously argue that recon and target ID traditional military activities and not subject to direct congressional oversight. The NRO (National Reconnaissance Office) can not do the same job as an actual person on the ground, whether that person is a CIA operative roaming the streets of Tehran or a few SEALS in a hole in the Iranian desert.

 

It is also well known fact that congress is about as good at keeping secrets as a sieve is at holding water. It would be a danger to the safety of troops on the ground to have Congress oversee each and every on the ground HUMINT mission. It is also not practicle in many situations to get congressional approval in which time is a factor.

 

I realize that it is difficult and goes against the gut instincts of most Americans, but in these times and in situations like this you have to give the military a little latitude to conduct the operations they feel are ness. for the safety of this country and the troops that may have to go into battle, in the near or far future.

 

The simple answer to your Question (Why aren't they telling us?) is , because if congress knew there would be dozens of aides and assistants, some with the same level of restaint and respondsibility as Monica Lewinsky who would know the details of these operations as well.