Thursday, January 18, 2007

The block

Lots of scares about Iran in the news, including a denial they fired on a US vessel after allegedly shooting down a UAV on Wednesday. The Beeb fired their own shot today, suggesting the US turned down a proposal from Iran in 2003 that was tantamount to what the Iraq Study Group was suggesting--a bargain. This will get the required spin by the MSM and bloggers, but the Captain has a good take on it's meaning, even if he was wrong about the source.

With all these recent stories people have completely forgotten the donkeys:
Iraqi security forces intercepted six donkeys carrying 53 anti-tank mines and an anti-tank rocket near the Iranian border in Iraq, the U.S. military said on Thursday. The bomb team determined that the mines were Soviet and Italian-made. One was set up to be used as a roadside bomb, the military said.
Sounds like quick work for Task Force 16, though.

Actually, it was well known to some in 2003 that Iran was willing to cooperate with us on OIF. They wanted Saddam gone more than we did. One of those who knew was George Friedman of Stratfor, who in his book "America's Secret War" postulates an overarching theory of why we went into Iraq to begin with. His thought--it wasn't only WMDs, or regime change, or Saddam's propensity to do irrational things, it was a show of force to those who blew the towers. It was to show the Mujahadeen that we could finish something we started, including them.

His reason? As noted in Afghanistan and most recently in Somalia, jiahdis have a nasty habit of scattering to wind to fight again, making it hard to ever win a war. But a decisive stroke to roust Saddam and show his fellow tyrants our resolve might serve a better purpose. The jihadis are tied to states, most notably Saudi Arabia, but the imagery of a swinging Saddam and his half-brother Barzan in two pieces on the floor would certainly leave an impression. Under this premise it makes perfect sense when Bush ambiguously says winning Iraq makes the world safer, despite the fact no WMDs were found and no connection to AQ was ever proven. "Shock and awe", anyone?

With that in mind, this outrageous story doesn't sound so weird, even though it comes from questionable sources and an even more questionable medium. While the moonbats might tingle at such trivia they fail to realize it actually points a finger in a direction other than Washington.

Think about what we already know. A small group of alleged relatives were responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing and planned the 2001 attack. Along the way they planned a massive attack on 10 jumbo jets, all before swearing allegiance to the bearded one. The odd distance kept by both Ramzi Yousef, who confessed to the 1993 attack, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has allegedly confessed to the 2001 attack, has always been somewhat weird, as exposed by Laurie Mylroie a few years ago. Both hail from Pakistan, who appear to be getting away with murder for reasons probably involving enriched metals.

Heck, while we're out there why not take a stab at this story, unearthed out of Afghanistan by Little Green Footballs. If the Taliban had it, and we found it, that means it can be tested and traced. The results will likely not come to light, but it might solve some perplexing questions.

No comments: