So I'm reading my former boss Michael Ledeen's column today and I learn (via a link to Iraq the Model) that according to a captured Iraqi terrorist that George Habash's PFLP (the only Palestinian group ever to successfully assassinate a member of the Israeli cabinet) has come out of the woodwork and is now actively involved in targeting US forces in Iraq. That's a huge story given its Syrian connections, and it certainly isn't the first of its kind to come out of broadcasts on Iraqi TV.
Which leads me to the question: Why isn't this getting more play over here? Why aren't any of these stories getting play over here?
What this means
Like I said above, the PFLP has been around since the 1970s and is one of the deadliest Palestinian terrorist groups in the business. The Israelis appear to have more or less dismantled their infrastructure in the Palestinian Territories, but they still retain more than enough fighters and infrastructure in the Levant. It is also a wholely-owned subsidiary of the Syrian government (complete with offices in Damascus where the group's founder, George Habash, lives) and serves as one of their more capable Palestinian proxies against the Israeli government. If the PFLP is fighting against US forces inside Iraq at Habash's behest, it is inconceiveable that they would be doing so without the knowledge of their Syrian handlers.
To bring it down to the bottom line, this means that a Palestinian terrorist group that is trained, harbored, and financed by Bashar al-Assad's regime is complicit in the deaths of US and Iraqi soldiers. If this can be confirmed, it would seem to indicate that Syrian involvement in the assassination of Rafik Hariri would be the least of al-Assad's (or Khaddam, if we want to be more up-front about these things) problems.
Ah, but is it true?
This isn't the first time that explosive terrorist confessions have appeared on Iraqi TV. For example, back in January 2005 we got the confession of Colonel Muayed Yassin Aziz Abd al-Rahim al-Nasseri which claimed that at least one of the Iraqi insurgent groups, Jaish Mohammed, received support from both Syria and Iran. Other accounts broadcast on Iraqi TV during the most recent fighting with the Mahdi Army included footage of captured and I believe statements by Iranian intelligence officers (as well as captured Iranian weaponry) as well as by captured al-Qaeda members. From my limited knowledge of Iraqi TV, it seems that confessions of this nature are released on a semi-regular basis.
My question is two-fold: are these confessions credible and if so, why aren't we seeing them over here? If US intelligence believes that all of these accounts of foreign involvement in the insurgency are bogus, then why are we letting the Iraqis broadcast them? Isn't that just needlessly antagonizing Iraq's neighbors? While I can more than understand the whole point of using a foreign scapegoat in order to lessen the amount of domestic strife caused by the insurgency, there's enough statements I've heard or read from US intelligence officials in line with what Colonel al-Nasseri was saying (though the involvement of the PFLP is a new one for me) for me to believe that there's at least some solid reporting to go along with all the statements by insurgent fighters. And if that's the case, then I think it's more than appropriate to air the tapes of these captured cretins over here to give the general public a better idea of just who it is that's fighting our troops. Who knows, it might even take the wind out of the sails of the moonbat "anti-imperialist" ideology to which Miss Jasim and her brother likely belong.
The bottom line is that if this is all true then the American general public needs to become aware of it, especially since they're the ones providing the young men and women who are currently involved in fighting the insurgency. If it's not true then we need to discourage the Iraqis from broadcasting such things since there's no need to needlessly antagonize and incite the general population against your neighbors. Back in World War 2 we had these great public service announcements explaining the public who the bad guys were and why we were fighting them, is to much to ask that we get to see translated or subtitled versions of confessions that are already being broadcast on Iraqi TV?
Either way, is it that much of a crime to ask for some straight answers on this one?
The foreign journalists in Iraq are too busy sipping Martinis by the pools in the Hotels to actively seek out information. I can think of no other war where the reporters did so little effective reporting.
As for the PLFP, how much of a threat are they if they are indeed involved in Iraq?
Well, they pioneered a lot of the finer points of modern terrorism (airline hijackings among them) so I wouldn't consider it a good thing. OTOH, they're also subordinate to Bashar and Co in Damascus so they're easier to rein in.
The CSPAN I have managed to catch of the military briefing the reporters implies to me that the military is well aware of the general type of threat they face. That it is the PFLP I haven't heard - but 'Syrian backed' and other similar terms pop up all the time. Then doesn't make it to the reporting. The 'wedding party on Syrian border' had picture of piles of Syrian passports IIRC.
It has seemed to me that the Administration hasn't been emphasizing connections or otherwise openly pushing Syria while job #1 was getting the elections working. Now that the elections have gone off, we might see the accumulation, collation, and dissemination of the Syrian involvement. And the reporters will have no one to blame but themselves for missing this - they heard this info, and "failed to connect the dots". The Iraqi blogs at least had little confusion about Syrian involvement.
I have no doubt the military is aware of this, heck I've seen accounts that the bad guys are coming in through Syria on jihadi websites. The issue has always been to what extent Syria is involved in the insurgency (they claimed that the passports were stolen, given to the jihadis by corrupt officials, etc. on the "wedding party" issue) and the presence of the PFLP would seem to clarify that. They're a bought-and-paid-for subsidiary of Syrian intelligence led by a Greek Orthodox Marxist who has up until now had no interest in the whole global jihad circuit, so them being in Iraq says that they're doing so at somebody's behest.
As far as the Iraqi bloggers are concerned, they can't afford to engage in high-minded speculation about the nature of their neighbors. Hell, they see this stuff in the confessions and exhibitions that are regularly displayed on Iraqi TV, which is really all I'm asking for us to get here.
Um, maybe the fact that the scoop comes courtesy of Mr. Ledeen has something to do with the skepticism it's being given.
The foreign journalists in Iraq are too busy sipping Martinis by the pools in the Hotels to actively seek out information.
Gosh, I wonder why that is? Are they just a lazy bunch of do-nothings? They sure seemed to be gung-ho for bang-bang pictures in the first Gulf War, in Zaire, in the Balkans.
Could it be that a non-trivial number of journalists have turned up dead in the last year? Some of them a foot shorter, from the top? This is probably evidence of our success in establishing security in Iraq.
Stickler:
There are times I seriously wonder if you even read these posts before criticizing them. I think at least AJL, Abu Frank, JC, et al. at least grants me that much ...
The source of the information in question is not Ledeen (as I stated explicitly in the post), though even if it were you'd still have to explain why what he's saying is, y'know, wrong. Call me a stickler on this one, but I find an honest argument a lot more persuasive than a knee-jerk ad hominem because there's information coming from one of those evil neocons. In any case, your criticism is without merit because this scoop isn't coming from Ledeen, but rather from Iraq the Model, who blogged about what he saw broadcast on Iraqi TV. All Ledeen (or myself, for that matter) is doing is placing that information in perspective by offering commentary on what the PFLP is with respect to the rather robust patronage it has enjoyed under the al-Assad regime. Patronage, I might add, that nobody including the Syrian government denies. You got a beef with his facts on the PFLP-Syrian ties, your problem goes way beyond just Ledeen.
Why aren't we seeing these?
OK, I'll bite.
We're not seeing these because neither the news media nor the administration want to encourage popular hostility towards Syria and Iran right now, because there aren't alot of obviously good options for dealing with them.
<flosses/>
That would be what you might call the "conventional wisdom". I'm not asserting it's right, I'm asserting it is arguably the CW.
What is needed of course is to explore the nonobviously good options. And note that these may not entail any role for popular outrage, and so those cards are not being flipped over right now.
Dan, I think lewy (or the CW) is almost right. Think about all of the sturm und drang about the regular army being stretched in Iraq. That might be one reason for using non-traditional operations and means to deal with Syria and Iran - and those are most efectively done quietly in most cases. There might be other reasons too, such as not alienating the Iranian populace, which has begun to hate the mullahs.
It sure doesn't seem like the U.S. knows a lot about the PFLP. Maybe that is why.
lewy14/Robin:
I can understand that much, but I think that the positives far outweigh the negatives with respected to having an informed general population if this stuff is true. I don't think that it necessarily argues that military action is the only solution to the problem, though exposing the Iranian or Syrian roles more fully would certainly put pressure on Congress to develop more unconventional methods for dealing with both states.
praktike:
I'm afraid I don't follow you.
Though I don't doubt the info, I'm puzzled- PFLP is of a dying breed. They were deadly, but they were NEVER popular. Why? Because they were/are orthodox Marxist fanatics. They hate Islamists, and probably Islam in general. They were born out of rabid nationalism. It makes no sense for such a group to fighting in Iraq, except as mercenaries/proxy terrorists for Syria or another group.
You asked:
My question is two-fold: are these confessions credible and if so, why aren't we seeing them over here?
I answered: because we may not know.
You asked:
If US intelligence believes that all of these accounts of foreign involvement in the insurgency are bogus, then why are we letting the Iraqis broadcast them?
Because Iraq is a "sovereign" country?
praktike:
As to the first, I'll buy that much. Still, the US and Iraq are cooperating extensively on security issues, we have got to have at least some idea as to whether this is credible or not.
As to the second, the sovereignty argument doesn't hold water here. Qatar is sovereign, but we regularly pressure regarding al-Jazeera's editorial line. When it comes to incitement (and that's basically what this stuff is, if it's not true), we have pressured any number of countries throughout the Middle East.
We have a simple and effective, but slow, means of terminating Syria's Baathist regime if we want to. The time required might make it costly in terms of Syrian countermeasures.
We can close Syrian and Lebanese ports with naval mines, i.e. blockade the Syrian economy, including its criminal one. The Turks like the Syrians less than we do so they'd deny use of their ports and rail lines to make up for the closure of Syrian-controlled ports. Syria's rail connections with Jordan and Saudi Arabia lack sufficient capacity to carry the tonnage necessary to keep the Syrian economy going. Ditto for all possible truck and air traffic. Even Syria's feeble economy relies on railroads from ports to carry most of the goods it requires.
The major problem with this, besides the fact that governments don't think that way these days, is the political & diplomatic problems fromm blockading Lebanon, which happens to be Syria's wholly controlled subsidiary.
Few understand, though, how important sea traffic through Lebanon is for the drug trade carried on by the gangster confederacy called the Syrian government aka its Baathist regime. Cutting off that route would cause an immediate massive dive in their income while they establish new routes through Turkey for their high value, low bulk, exports. And having to share with their new Turkish cutouts would cut their profit margins.
Smuggling through Lebanon is a critical source of income for Syrian's ruling gangsters. It pays for much of their regime protective forces. A temporary shutoff of that income, and a longer-term reduction in their profit, would likely bring about regime collapse faster than the slower economic collapse.
The real drawback here, IMO, is that there might not be a replacement regime, i.e., 1980's Lebanese type chaos, for a while. Syria's Alawite minority (Shiite-related - about 10% of the population) has been dominant for many years (the Assad clan are Alawites) and is violently unpopular. There is a fair chance of it suffering genocidal massacre and ethnic cleansing at the hands of the Sunni majority when the Alawites lose power.
IMO the major reason for American caution in dealing with Syria is not difficulty in inducing regime change, but whether the consequences might be worse for some time, i.e., chaos with Islamic terrorist controlled sanctuaries in some parts of the country, and eventual emergence of a truly nutball Islamic regime. Much of this is really just fear of the unknown, but we would be taking a significant chance.
So put Bashir Assad (or Syria's Baathist gangster confederacy) in Cleavon Little's place in the scene from Mel Brooks' movie, Blazing Saddles when the new black sheriff holds a gun to his head and shouts:
"Don't shoot or I'll shoot the nigger!"
Mr. Darling:
Ledeen was a cheerleader for "creative destruction, transforming the Middle East, and before that an admirer of Italian fascism.
He has been a cheerleader not just for invading Iraq but for adding Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia to the list of countries we need to invade.
His version of "freedom" looks a lot like Trotsky's eternal revolution. He is intimately connected with the neoconservative clique which lied about WMD in Iraq and sold this country a bill of goods about how easy the occupation would be. His daughter at age 28 was put in charge of Iraq's economy, presumably not because of her competence. We are paying a huge price in blood and treasure for all these things.
I usually don't like ad hominem attacks. But someone like Ledeen is part of and cheerleader for a dangerous cabal with demonstrated contempt for truth and rational policy. So when he now spins us a story based on an Internet rumor, and he has demonstrated both ulterior motive and idealistic dissociation with reality, I am very skeptical.
If Winds of Change is just a PNAC pipeline, then I'd like to know now. It would clearly be a waste of my time to debate current events with fantasists and fanatics.
Stickler,
I suspect Mr. Darling agrees with your last sentence 100%.
Good grief, stickler. Most of your post speaks for itself, but this:
is so demonstrably false that I hardly see the point in repeating what Dan has stated twice already. This is a report from Iraqi TV.
Dan, what have you heard about Hamas and Fatah involvement in Iraq? Beyond the Hamas office opened in Basra last year, there hasn't been much in the way of coverage of their presence.
Stickler:
I dealt with the whole fascism thing awhile back on my blog, but suffice it to say that as someone who actually knows the guy I think I'm a little more informed as to the nature of his views than the tinfoil hat brigade over at the American Conservative. I recognize that you likely view them as the True Exemplars of American Conservativism™ who have been unfairly persecuted by the Evil Neocon Cabal® for daring to speak the truth as to the nature of the evil Zionist conspiracy to use the US to destroy the enemies of Israel. We'll agree to disagree on that one ...
He also doesn't favor military action against either Iran or Syria (dunno about the others), but to know that you'd actually have to read what he writes rather than the cartoon version of the man that AmCon subscribes to. He favors regime change, which is not the same as a military campaign.
The slander accusations as to his daughter have been critiqued on this blog and others. The same is true of most of the other accusations and I'm more than happy to go down the list if you'd like me to, though I'll be quite up front and say that I really don't think that anything I say would change your opinion, anymore than anything I say to the charming Mr. al-Ghamdi we had the other day would change his.
As WoC being a PNAC pipeline, we got a lot of different views and perspectives among our contributors as you're hopefully at least somewhat aware of by now. Some of them are in line with PNAC, some of them aren't. My own view of Chechnya, as I understand it, allegedly runs counter to those of a number of neocons. But then like I said, I doubt there's much I can say that will change your mind on this one.
Oh, and you still haven't explained why the information reported by Iraq the Model and cited by Ledeen should be regarded as unreliable. You say your skeptical, but you don't provide anything specific, just recite the tired old litany of ad hominem attacks.
stickler, i've had it. Dr. Ledeen is a Fellow with the American Enterprise Institute and surely has had his credentials vetted.
Which is more than I can say for you.
Dr. Ledeen's daughter was not put in charge of Iraq's economy-- she's an intern, which is completely age appropriate.
So what if Dr. Ledeen proposes draconian solutions? If you weren't so clueless you would understand that that is part of any good think tank's design. For constuctive discussion there have to be at least two positions. What are you looking for here? A roomful of moderate clones that always agree with each other?
Colt:
Thanks for the back-up from you, Joe, and jinnderella.
As far as the Hamas offices, my understanding is that they're mainly for fundraising purposes which would jive with their MO in other parts of the Middle East. Hezbollah, which also has offices in parts of Iraq, is a more pressing concern I think because they have a larger organization and a greater offensive capability in terms of their propensity for carrying out terrorist attacks. Fatah is another matter, since most of the Palestinian groups who were hosted by Saddam were Arafat rivals or former cronies like Abu Nidal. I still haven't seen a good post-Baathist break-down of what Abu Nidal and some of other groups hosted by Saddam look like these days, since they had a presence in Lebanon and Syria that would have presumably survived OIF.
Regarding Simone Ledeen, whom I regard as a friend, she had the qualified credentials to work for the CPA in Iraq and there was no nepotism involved, one of the reasons that people who actually know her find so aggravating every time it's made. In addition to being untrue, it's a cheap shot thrown out against her not because of anything she did but rather because people don't like her father.
OK, let's roll the tape.
Mind you, this is from a puff piece that said lots of nice things about the energy and talents of the "Brat Pack" (their words), so much so you were, I guess, supposed to lose any curiosity about whether hiring strictly from the resume files of the Heritage Foundation was the wisest course. But a word like "intern" doesn't really correspond to the level of responsibility indicated in the article, now does it, guys?
Stickler has Ledeen pere pegged, by the way. For his role in toadying to the mullahs in the 1970s he should have disappeared into the wilderness, and his latterday desire to war on Iran is probably more a squabble amongst thieves.
The stuff about Simone Ledeen is a rehash of an argument AJL had with Dan when Mr. Darling wrote his detailed article on the subject of mindless Washington partisanship, Paul Krugman, and Simone Ledeen. At the time, Roger L. Simon and his comments section also dealt with the issue. I thought Klaatu's comment (he was in the CPA with Ms. Ledeen) was excellent and forthright, and Ms. Ledeen ended up making an appearance on both blogs. And I had forgotten how funny praktike's "haterade" line was...
People interested in those side issues can read, decide, and continue that discussion over there (it's an old entry, so if your comment doesn't show, it just means I need to approve it out of the spam-catcher).
Over here, how about confining the discussion to the PFLP, Iraq, and Syria.... the subject of the blog post, and all.
AJL:
Congradulations, you quoted the Washington Post that accurately described Simone's position in the CPA. As I tried to indicate above, while intern is not an accurate term with which to describe what Simone did, she was qualified for the work and had done stuff previously in that area in Europe. You still haven't demonstrated that her position in Iraq was due to nepotism, which I gather is the crux of stickler's accusations.
I dunno, you and other anti-war posters have made all kinds of accusations about pre-war Iraq intelligence (it all came from Chalabi, administration pressure on the CIA, ad infinitum) that was been pretty thoroughly debunked by the SSIC report that that hideous neocon John Edwards signed off on and you're still here and in many cases repeating the same accusations. But hey, you guys are the "reality-based" community so it has to be true, right? That said, stickler's characterization of Ledeen is simply speaking factually inaccurate as Ledeen does not advocate military action against either Syria or Iran - maybe you should try actually reading what the guy says before you crucify him.
As to the accusation that Ledeen "toadied to the mullahs in the 1970s" I haven't the foggiest what this was about - he was the New Republic's Rome correspondent for a good chunk of that period IIRC and was certainly no fan of Khomeini, as can be seen by what he describes in War Against The Terror Masters which, I'm assuming, you probably haven't read since if you did you would be more familiar with Ledeen's actual views on the subject.
I read the Yglesias article and ignoring the fact that the Franklin investigation doesn't seem to have uncovered the vast AIPAC/OSP/Likud/SISMI/Mason conspiracy that Juan Cole was touting when it first debuted. People in the CIA having a vendetta against neocons in general and Ledeen in particular - they were the ones claiming to journalists that he forged the Niger documents, remember? IIRC, you first learned about that via Talking Points Memo and bought it hook, line, and sinker when it first debuted. Of course, the SSIC report kinda blew that line of speculation out of the water but any stick to beat a dog, right?
Now I don't pretend for a moment to know the truth about either Ghorbanifar or the Niger documents, but what I do know (and which you seem to have a hard time grasping, if I may be quite frank) is that just because somebody leaks something of this nature to the press doesn't necessarily mean that it's true and that if nothing else it's certainly possible that this information should be viewed within the context of the ongoing struggle in government between the neocons and their opponents (for lack of a better word given the broad range of ideologies that term encompasses) given the past willingness by various individuals at the CIA to leak dissenting, inaccurate or simply false information to the press for the purpose of furthering a political battle. Your attempt to attribute the whole Zarqawi-in-Baghdad story to Chalabi and the INC is a good example of this, since, as I've explained on numerous occasions, it came in large part from electronic intercepts by the NSA, the interrogation of Moammar Ahmed Yousef, and the Jordanian GID. Given that Chalabi has an outstanding warrant for his arrest in Jordan concerning the Petra Bank affair and is an outstanding critic of the Hashemite monarchy, one assumes that the GID would not be on good terms with him. Real intelligence and analysis is a lot more complicated than the whole childish "neocons/OSP evil, CIA/State good" (or the inverse) view that has grown up among the punditocracy over the last couple of years.
Now that said, neither you or stickler have provided any substantive information that refutes either Ledeen's reporting of the claim from Iraqi TV or his analysis of the PFLP's relationship with the Syrian regime. If you disagree with him (or me, for that matter, in the post I made above) on either of these points or have evidence to refute his claims, I'm all ears. But to simply dismiss his information (or more specifically, a confession broadcast on Iraqi TV) off-hand for the purpose of engaging in a "shoot-the-messenger" methodology just because you don't like Ledeen is both childish and tribalist to the extreme. I very much doubt you'd feel the same way if I were to simply dismiss something from a left-wing source, like say the Yglesias entry you cited above, solely on account of ideology rather than actually addressing the issues. I addressed it, explained my view of the information and the methodology by which I came to it all without going after Yglesias. But I suppose that that's too much to ask when confronted by those damned neocons ...
Barring a segue into Dan's older post on this subject, which can be an open free-for-all for everybody as long as they want, I'm going to call that the last word on the subject of the Ledeens in this post.
Note that you can comment there and link to a previous comment here for comprehension... just use the URL of the post # and you're off and running.
My one request is that you type about 10 words before throwing in a link, as we're having a technical problem that throws off our main page if you put in a link too soon.
OT:
Oh yeah. This has reminded me of somthing. Whatever happened to Vesicle Trafficker? I don't think he's been around since the election... not that I miss him much.
Before you go putting words in my mouth again, Mr. Darling, allow me to respond at least to this:
Now that said, neither you or stickler have provided any substantive information that refutes either Ledeen's reporting of the claim from Iraqi TV or his analysis of the PFLP's relationship with the Syrian regime.
How can we provide anything substantive to respond to a story, reported by ITM, and then amplified by the NRO? The number of data points here are few, presented by sources with credibility problems and ulterior motives. My local cable provider doesn't carry Iraqi TV so I can't speak to the veracity of ITM's report.
And the point of the story, obviously, is to add one more plank to the War on Syria platform. If the justification for this new adventure is as flawed as the last bout of "regime change" (what a euphemism for war!), the result will be more chaos and more dead Americans. I should think the burden of proof would rest on those advocating the new, reckless adventure, not on those urging caution.
Faster please?
Rumours from the PNAC-Masonic conspiracy intel division (whose existence I must now deny) say that he's gone into trafficking candy at Austin High, and plans to retire soon. I'm told his Lava Vesicle Jawbreakers are very popular.
Trafficking in banned substances is a very lucrative practice, and is the major supplement to (or even replacement for) state sponsorship for every enduring terrorist organization. It would be very interesting to get a handle on the PFLP's role in Syria's cut of Lebanon's drug trade.
Now consider that issue, and note the prominence of marijuana and hashish in Lebanon's trade, and ask yourself why a price-support program for a drug less dangerous than alcohol remains the policy of the U.S. government.
Dumb... and the price isn't just measured in dollars.
Stickler:
Well, if you think it's bunk (which you do?), by all means say so. Ditto if you have reason to believe that Iraq the Model misreported the substance of the confession carried by Iraqi TV. The "credibility problems" you may have with Ledeen aren't an issue here, as I attempted to explain earlier. Nobody seriously doubts the extent to which Bashar al-Assad and the PFLP are in cahoots, so if this is true it would seem to up the ante on the extent to which Syria is involved in the Iraqi insurgency, if at all.
To begin with, "regime change" is not a euphemism for war, though it sometimes requires violence in order to be achieved. We've already had US-backed regime changes take place in the Ukraine and Georgia without the use of any armed forces. Clinton managed to bring down Milosevic through much a similar means once he had evicted him from Kosovo. To quote Fred Pruitt in response to a poster who does favor immediate military action against Iran:
Ledeen, if you bothered to read his work for comprehension rather polemical value, understands this. That is why his big initiative right now is not calling for the sacking of Tehran but rather an inter-Iranian referendum on their current form of government. By the same token, he wants the US to supply greater support to Lebanese dissidents to turn up the heat on Syria, an echo that is quickly finding growing appeal in both Washington and Paris. The whole idea that neocons want to smash the existing states of the Middle East to rubble and have a pyramid of skulls assembled in their honor is, as I said, the cartoon version of their actual views on the subject. An awful lot of people conflate their desire to see the morally bankrupt despots of the Middle East replaced with a desire for warmongering, not understanding that there is a sizeable difference between the two.
So no, Ledeen is not advocating that we raze Damascus anytime soon. He is, if you read his column, bringing attention to a number of points:
1. The insurgency is based around hatred of the US, not religion.
2. The insurgency is an international rather than local phenomenon supported by neighboring states that do not want to see a democratic Iraq emerge.
3. Syria is one of these states, as can be seen from the presence of the PFLP in the insurgent forces.
4. The US negotiations with the insurgents is a sign of the latter party's desperation, particularly given the fact that one of their host nations (Syria) is under heavy pressure for its purported role in the Hariri assassination.
5. The tide is turning against said state sponsors of terrorism and will end in the overthrow of their regimes.
I suspect you read his statement "we're leading the revolution that will wash clean their filthy domains" as a call to arms against said state sponsors of terrorism, but as I said, this is not Ledeen's objective. He believes, as many, many neocons have expounded upon in the last 2 years, that the successful creation of a democratic Iraq will serve as a model that will eventually lead to regime change in countries like Syria and Iran. He sees the impact of the Iraqi elections on the broader Arab world as reflecting this.
Now maybe he's right and maybe he's wrong, but my point is that you're basically using your own straw man view of him as a means to discredit the factual information he is attempting to relay in the article. Whether or not the neocon plans for Middle East democratization are viable or not, either the PFLP is part of the insurgency inside Iraq or it is not. If it is, then that certainly of interest because the PFLP is universally recognized as being a proxy of the al-Assad regime.
And that, incidentally, was my entire point in writing this post. If these confessions, which have been aired again and again on Iraqi TV, are accurate than I think the American public has a right to see them as well so we have a better understanding of who we are fighting over there and why. If they are not accurate, then they shouldn't be aired on Iraqi TV because they're acting as a form of incitement, possibly sectarian in nature given the frequent references to Iran. Ledeen's opinions, past actions, et al. are irrelevant as far as whether or not the PFLP is active inside Iraq and that would be true even if he were calling for the bombing of Damascus and Tehran. This is not some abstract opinion we are talking about here, this is a matter of fact since (I'm assuming) you and I both subscribe to the whole notion of objective proof.
But hey, if Ledeen is too tainted by neocon sympathies for your liking here is a similar report from ABC News, this one citing the confessions of a purported Syrian intelligence officer which is actually even more damning than the PFLP if true. Now you can question the timing and airing of these tapes to correspond with the latest Insidious PNAC Plot™ all you like, but the issue remains as to whether or not the man on that tape is or is not a Syrian intelligence officer. If he is, then this is certainly of note. If he is not, then it's probably in our best interests to stop these broadcasts, wouldn't you agree?
He drank too much haterade yesterday morning, for sure.
LOL, praktique! I had forgotten too! A true classic. ;)
Here is a comment from Dr. Ledeen at LGF from nearly a year ago. From The Mirror of Fallujah entry.
I thought it interesting that both Charles Johnson and Dr. Ledeen were advocating supporting democracy in Iran and the middeast at that time. Note, not invasion, but support for democratic entities within the arab states. They both saw ten years of neglect in supporting democracy in the middeast as a policy failure on our part. I agree.
Now, I am not sure invasion would be the optimal strategy now-- but like GW, I am extremely unwilling to see it removed from the bargaining table as an option.
Lurker: Reguarding VT, he became very bitter after the election, and said something nasty to me in an argument about evolutionary psychology.
Armed Liberal gave him a time-out and he never came back.
I think he lost his raison d'etre when the Democrats lost the election.
Truly, a poor sport.
#20 Dan
WRT back-up, any time.
Have you come across any information about operational Hamas and al-Fatah groups in Iraq? Given the Arafat-Nidal situation, I'd expect any Fatah terrorists to have arrived since OIF started.
Incidentally, have you heard about the theory that Abu Nidal Organisation was another 'deniable' arm of the PLO? Essentially, ANO would target PLO officials that had dis-pleased Arafat, and carry out attacks on targets the PLO itself could not (while retaining its 'peaceful' image). Interesting idea. I'm not sure I believe it, but its entertaining nonetheless.
Hamas does host videos of attacks on the US on its website.
jinnderella,
Thanks for the update. Alas VT, another victim of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). Perhaps there's a genetic predisposition to this malady? ;-)
Joe,
I was with you through the first curve. Then you sorta left the tracks. Was this meant as a metaphor of the VT experience?
Also, AP now reporting a story of Syrian officer on Iraqi TV.
That much I knew, as well as that they've handed out CD-ROMs supporting jihadis in Chechnia, Kashmir and Afghanistan. I did see a report that Hamas had sent operational (as well as fundraising) terrorists to Iraq - IIRC the estimate was 70-80. But I don't remember exactly. It wouldn't surprise me in the least, though.
Syria plays host to Hamas terrorists who can't get in to Israel. I cannot believe they'd sit on their hands with American troops across the border.
Dan, I suggest you re-read comment 19 in this thread before criticizing my use of "intern". It's us against jinderella on that small point. (I realize you would not have expected this, and I didn't link upthreadwards.)
My last comment on Family Ledeen in this thread is that I wouldn't want anyone's opinions of me to slop over onto my kids, and while I find the idea that Simone Ledeen (and Ari Fleisher's brother) ended up in Iraq on sheer merit preposterous, I have absolutely no reason to believe that the Simone apple has fallen near the Michael rotten tree.
I would, myself, have expected the Syrians to retain arms'-length from anti-American insurgents, as they have with the irredentist Palestinian groups, allowing them to organize, but not giving them materiel nor allowing operations to be launched from Syrian territory. There's a certain irony that we hope Assad uses his anti-democratic state apparatus to squash terrorist groups not of our liking. We made similar demands of the unlamented Rais of Ramallah.
How can we provide anything substantive to respond to a story, reported by ITM, and then amplified by the NRO? The number of data points here are few, presented by sources with credibility problems and ulterior motives.
Had to do a doubletake there for a moment. I guess you mean this NRO.
I thought for a moment you meant that NRO.
Colt:
There were a lot of reports about Fatah and/or Hamas and Islamic Jihad having sent suicide attackers to Iraq both before the war and in the immediate aftermath. Some of these are likely true and you won't find me doubting for a minute that Hamas jihadis would end up in Iraq to fight the Great Satan (the Fatah angle is more complicated, as most of their guys were said to be coming from Ein al-Hilweh, where the local Fatah commander has been named in Jordanian court as a Zarqawi associate with respect to the Millennium Plot) and got killed with all the other foreign fighters during the course of OIF. The problem is, as I have noted before, that it is often difficult to determine one's group association from a mangled corpse ;)
As far as ANO goes, I've heard that theory and it makes as much sense as anything else, though Abu Nidal's periodic bouts of both wild paranoia and insanity that ended up destroying a large chunk of his organization kinda makes me doubt that he would be particularly useful as that kind of a pawn. ANO's origins aren't exactly my area of expertise, however, so I'll defer to the consensus of the talking heads on that one.
I thought it was open knowledge that Hamas distributes all kinds and flavors of jihadi videos? In any case, a lot of their anti-Americanism seems to be as much for bluster and fundraising purposes as anything else - check out how fast Rantisi backed away from claims that they were going to start attacking the US after Yassin assumed room temperature if you want an illustration of this.
AJL:
Fair enough on the Ledeens, let's get back to the topic at hand:
Agreed, but Arafat was always kinda lacking when it came to actually shutting down the groups in question. Al-Assad has provided support to a certain extent against al-Qaeda immediately after 9/11 in so far as detaining the guy who recruited the Hamburg cell. My understanding of the Syrian power structure is that their support for the Iraqi insurgency is being driven mainly by Khaddam and others in the Syrian hierarchy - this isn't the "good Bashar vs. evil Old Guard" model, this is the "who is really running the inter-regime mechanics of Syrian government" who are now trying to see the maximum of what they can get away with. Praktike made the point that Syria is pragmatic enough to be cowed by threats (i.e. Turkey with respect to the PKK), but it would seem at this point that the regime either does not regard our threats as credible or believes we won't act on them. That may have changed since the Hariri killing now that Chirac and the Euros appear to be on-board with us, which was one of Dr. Ledeen's points that the ex-Baathists may have been pressured by Damascus to open negotiations with the US to take some of the heat off the regime for supporting the Iraqi insurgency. In the absence of anything further, that speculation makes as much sense to me as anything else.
Dan:
Weird, given the turf war there between A-Q and Fatah.
True, though I do find solace in their being dead :-)
WRT ANO, Arafat would set something like that up. But the difference between 'would' and 'did'...
Hamas understands that Jews are fair game and, as far as America is concerned, Americans aren't. But, to go back to Jamal al-Aql (again :-), they're prepared to attack the continental United States without any return in terms of boosted funding.
The reason Ein al-Hilweh is so complicated precisely because of all the fighting there; it's easily one of the most screwed up places on the planet, where Hamas is held in contempt for its moderation, where Hezbollah is a force of law and order, and where the PFLP is reduced to running hospitals. Oh, and the local al-Qaeda presence, Asbat al-Ansar, is in the middle of a war with even more militant Islamist extremist.
I remember al-Aql, that was why I said "a lot" rather than "all" with regard to their anti-Americanism. There is definitely something nasty there with respect to the US, but the leadership seems to have made a concerted decision at least for now to avoid such things either because they have enough problems with the Israelis or because their patrons are worried about them bringing the US down on their heads. If Syria is feeling the squeeze, however, that apparent restraint (in a fairly loose sense of the term) could change very quickly.
Dan:
Clearly, we're talking past one another. You're deep into analyzing the relationship between the PFLP, the Assad regime, and the Iraq insurgency. I'm deeply skeptical of the story and the man who brought it to our attention. Praktike's post above doesn't reassure me.
But I can't let this kind of thing go:
To begin with, "regime change" is not a euphemism for war, though it sometimes requires violence in order to be achieved.
Overthrowing a government in a sovereign state often requires violence. It is often seen as an act of war by the government being overthrown, especially if the effort fails. Even when it succeeds, it has just as much chance of destabilizing the state as anything else.
And even when it succeeds by most measures, it can have a raft of unintended consequences.
Finally, since you're in favor of "regime change" for Iran, do you not recall that the United States already did that once before. In 1953.
I submit that the long-term effects of that episode were not, on the whole, good for our strategic interests in the Middle East, let alone our moral standing in the region.
Ein el-Hilweh - where terrorists go to kill each other. What a place.
Fair enough :-)
Agreed.
Stickler:
I would submit that most of your skepticism is due to the man rather than to the actual merits or lack thereof of this particular situation (and keep in mind that one of the things I want to know is whether or not our intel guys think that this stuff is credible and if not why are we putting it on Iraqi TV). If I had known that I was going to be in for this kind of (undeserved, IMO) grief simply for linking Ledeen, I would have foregone the blogosphere custom of the "tip of the hat" and linked directly to Iraq the Model. But as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions ...
If Iran is harboring the remnants of the al-Qaeda leadership and supporting the killing of US soldiers in Iraq as I believe (and you can dismiss this if you like, but we can debate the merits or lack thereof of these beliefs another time) then they are already engaged in a de facto undeclared war against the US. So the whole idea of not engaging of regime change because it might cause instability or be seen as an act of war doesn't pass muster in my opinion.
Sure it can. But it can also lead to net gains over time, as can be seen by the fact that Serbia is no longer a threat to its neighbors.
As for the 1953 coup, that's a red herring on this one because we aren't calling for the overthrow of an elected leader to be replaced by a despot. Currently, we're calling for the reverse, as is much of the Iranian general public. There is a world of difference in terms of popular reaction between overthrowing a despot and overthrowing an elected government, which is one of the reasons why, despite anger over the US invasion of Iraq, few in the Arab world (or anywhere else) are clamoring for us to put Saddam Hussein back on the throne in Baghdad. I very much doubt that was true in the case of Mossadeq in Iran.
Hammorabi, (no doubt Stickler says its another CIA front")
Is also reporting on the Syrian involvment.
Adam Doma (42 years) from Sudan confessed that he received training in Syria under the supervision of Syrian Intelligence officers. He confessed that he beheaded 10 Iraqi civilians by his own hands so as he was given a leadership activity as Amer. He studied (Sunni Shariah) and lived in Iraq for 15 years! He confessed that he is a Syrian Intelligent agent. He was responsible for many terrorist activities including beheadings and recruiting Arabs in Syria and Iraq.
Rest of it
Ya, i know i know, but i reflect back on the LGF post Moronic Convergence where the Marxist NGOs and Commie Chavez imported Jew Hate into Brazil
And i reflect back opon the direct NAZI roots of the brand of socialism that dominates the ME.
Then the memeory all the denials historic and current come into focus.
Well its "complicated" they say, but to me lots of the "complexity" is faux, a smoke screen, for the actors of evil to hide behind.
when Raymond talks about the Nazi roots of socialism in the Middle East, he is literally correct. Baathism was based on a combination of Arab natrionalism and Nazi German political models, with some Stalin thrown in and then expanded when Russia won the war and made the pan-Arabists its Middle Eastern clients. When Russia fell, the Arab nationalists began importing Islamism into their doctrines at what they've hoped would be a controlled rate... and that element, too, has Nazi antecedents, via the Muslim Brotherhood.
I think it might have been Hitchens who first coined the term "Islamofascists." He did it from observation, but it truly fits.
And like Soviet Communism (or North Korea, or many parts of China, or...), over time Hayek proves correct and we see the degeneration of the totalitarian structure into what is essentially a criminal aristocracy. We've seen it in Iraq, in Arafat's crew, and in Syria. We are also seeing it, interestingly enough, in the Isalmic Republic of Iran - and had the Taliban survived long enough, their close ties to he drug trade would have produced much the same effect there.
In that sense, the PFLP and the drug runners in Lebanon are probably more than just the Syrian regime's client. They're its bridge to its logical endpoint.
Nice place ya got there, Assad. Too bad if something were to - you know... happen to it.
Joe,
Consider that Jumblatt has issues with Assad about sharing.
So the whole idea of not engaging of regime change because it might cause instability or be seen as an act of war doesn't pass muster in my opinion.
Just re-read that passage. So the idea of not destabilizing a sovereign government because it might (!) be seen as an act of war doesn't pass muster? Using this logic, where does the principle end -- the border between Burma and Thailand? Do you really think our Federal budget is infinite? That the Army isn't busy enough as is? And do you really expect us to believe that Iran is cooperating with Al Qaeda? Do they have Saddam's WMD, too?
Sorry to hear you're surprised that linking to Mr. Ledeen provoked a response. But he's been cheerleading "faster, please," for a while now, and it's so far cost us 1,400 dead and over $200 billion. It hasn't caught the guy who actually masterminded 9/11.
As for the 1953 coup, that's a red herring on this one because we aren't calling for the overthrow of an elected leader to be replaced by a despot.
We weren't in 1953, either. Back then, we were deposing a Communist fifth-columnist and replacing him with a pro-Western, enlightened, modernizer. That's not how it turned out, of course, but hey, we're the force of creative destruction, right? I'm sure it'll all be just fine this time around.
No. No. No. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Yes.
Ok, since Dan Darling put words in my mouth upthread (the idea that The American Conservative has a unifying philosophy is laughable, but whatever...), let me return the favor.
No. No. No. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Yes.
1. Oh. So, we must destabilize any regime which poses a (Ledeen-proven) threat to us. Great.
2. No, the principle doesn't end at the Burmese border. Cool, now we can finally overthrow the Chinese Communist tyranny!
3. Oh, the Federal budget isn't infinite. Hm. So, does that impact any of the above? Guess not. More debt for everyone! Oh, um, since the Chinese are buying most of it now, I guess that might gum things up a bit.
4. Wait, this is confusing. The Army is busy enough? So, we won't be using the Army, then. All CIA and stuff, I guess.
5. Iran is cooperating with Al Quaida, then. Okay, but, um, if this is based on assertions from the same folks who sold us the casus belli from 2003, it's a bit tainted. You might recall that President Bush himself admitted that there was no link between Saddam and 9/11. . But I'm sure we've got 'em dead to rights now.
6. Wait. Who has Saddam's WMD? Iran? Syria? If they existed, they sure seem to be portable. Where's that Duelfer report when I need it?
7. We're the force for creative destruction. Well, that's sort of accepted in a lot of places, lots more after 2003 than before. Or, at least, the destruction part. Perhaps we might be the force for permanent revolution.
Ah, crap. Seems you can't trust the Trotskyists even for a link. Permanent revolution, indeed.
correct link
Insert [ironic snarky remark about Trotskyists misleading Communism, and their intellectual heirs among the neocons leading America into the Middle East] here.
Stickler, having just read through all the comments, the points you raise in the latter part of this thread--the ones germane to Darling's post, anyway--were addressed earlier. As you seem to have conceded nothing, it's safe to say that you aren't easily swayed.
A weakness for ad hominems, straw-man restatements of opposing points of view, and off-topic accusatons does not enhance every reader's confidence in the strength of your assertions.
If that matters.
Seems im not the only one that saw the Iraq Vote as a Berlin Wall kind of thing.
More on Walid Jumblatt
In a Wash Post article by way of a Kerry Spot post that i fell over reading Dr. Sanity
(link trails, heh)
Bush and our military, kicking over the Baathist table in Iraq seems to have made all the others in the area somewhat wobbly.
Man, the BusHitler left are just gonna have to choke on their own bile.
Aye Joe, seems the "Reality Based" goofballs better get accustomed to adapting to ever changing new Reality eh?
stickler:
Near as I can tell, the American Conservative is united around opposition to any non-isolationist foreign policy with respect to the war on terrorism in general and neoconservativism in particular. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but what exactly are Buchanan and Co. going to rail against if the neocons vanished tomorrow except maybe illegal immigration?
Actually, most sensible observers would grant if nothing else that Iran poses a problem. The issue at hand is how to deal with it, not the existence of a problem there. Or do you disagree with the State Department with its assertion for years on end that Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of international terrorism?
All in good time. As I noted earlier (if you were reading for comprehension rather than polemical value), not every problem requires a hammer to solve and whenever possible diplomacy and the like is preferable to force. Moreover, because we are not omniscient we have to try and maximize our gains and minimize our losses wherever possible. Because the Chinese are not currently posing a direct threat to the United States the way al-Qaeda and its allies are, they get bumped a little further down the priorities list. Sorry if you disagree.
Yep, guess we better just sit back and do nothing then. Hey, it worked just fine through the 1990s! As I said, you try and maximize your gains whenever possible.
We have a navy and air force as well that are currently unoccupied, but that's neither here nor there. Depends on what we need to do and how we go about doing it. The CIA and State Department seem to have been enough when it came to the Ukraine, for example.
Except it isn't, given that most of the other countries in the region as well as in Europe readily accept Iranian cooperation with al-Qaeda, a concept that has been accepted through most the US government (including by that evil neocon Dick Clarke). So does Saad al-Faqih, for whatever that's worth. Also, no US government official ever said that we went to war in Iraq because of Iraqi complicity in 9/11. Finally, nobody except you is talking about going to war with Iran to begin with, but only because you conflate regime change with military action.
I dunno, I don't have 'em. Do you have them, Joe? That said, if you actually read the Duelfer report you will see that the whole idea that Iraq had WMDs by no means started or ended with the neocons - it was something that Uday Hussein believed going into the war, which is why he wanted to get some for use by his Fedayeen.
Who knows, maybe? But I thought we were all out to destroy the enemies of Israel, or so your pals over at AmCon claim on a fairly regular basis ...
That's a nice (and equally misleading) cheap shot, but the disconnect between a group that thinks that democracy is the solution to US problems in the Middle East and the disconnect between a group that looks upon Chairman Mao or Stalin as though they were some kind of misguided geniuses is big enough for Godzilla to step through. You gonna get past the opener at some point to say why you don't think that the PFLP is active inside Iraq beyond the argument that so far seems to consist of that Ledeen cited a piece of evidence that, God forbid, supports his position.
Stickler, I find those that use the bodies of our losses as props rather annoying.
Our losses in Iraq are amazingly low, absurdly low, the losses in GW1, also absurdly low, they had 10,000 body bags on hand, in Afganistan, low, i hope our light losses dont cause us to become accustomed to such small cost, because war has never been so cost free for the USA.
I cannot even hope for such low losses in a real war, taking Iwo Jima, we suffered 40% losses, we lost more people in training accidents for DDay than Gulf Wars one and two combined, and then some.
And dont give me that "Bush dont care" stuff, there is real reason he has the overwelming support of our troops.
I have yet to see a single thing you put forward that would hold up, out of what substance can be sifted out, because your 99.999% fluff
Even the Paleocons can make a substansive argument, and they certainly adapt to new reality on the ground.
The time for your argument, such as it was, passed when the first tank rolled north of Kuwait.
To offer up argument that went stale over a year ago is patently pathetic.
Garsh, and we were just gettin' started.
A weakness for ad hominems, straw-man restatements of opposing points of view, and off-topic accusatons does not enhance every reader's confidence in the strength of your assertions.
And the circle is complete. I'm not the one using sketchy evidence to demand a "faster, please" "foreign policy."
I really believe we ought to think very carefully before we destabilize regimes or invade countries. Especially if hacks like Ledeen are calling for said invasions. I'm using sarcasm, fact, and open derision to awaken those last functioning rational brain cells among your readers. I hope, perhaps against hope, that the insanity of further neocon adventure will awaken resistance in someone's heart.
Remember: I'm not the one calling for more death, more destruction, more "oops, turns out the WMD's were over there." It's American soldiers who pay the price for this lunacy, and it's American taxpayers who pick up the fiscal tab.
You advocate this noxious crap, you ought to defend it in the anonymity of the Internet.
Or, of course, you could sign up at a recruiting station near you.
Dan:
You can correct me if I'm wrong, but what exactly are Buchanan and Co. going to rail against if the neocons vanished tomorrow except maybe illegal immigration?
I won't correct you because you aren't wrong. Well, maybe they'll be angry about the disappearance of American manufacturing. But other than that, Buchanan's magazine, as I mentioned abovethread, is not particularly coherent, ideologically. So it goes.
But Buchanan isn't calling for "regime change," nor am I. You are. And you're using a lot of hopeful rhetoric, optimistic assessments, and silver-lining forecasts to support your assertions. To a skeptic you sound about as grounded as von Schlieffen.
These just aren't complete without the chickenhawk charge thrown in, are they?
So if the US military decides to go into Iran or Syria next, I take it your cool with that? Maybe we can do it like in Starship Troopers where the army has a veto on foreign policy ...
No, in fact you haven't used any evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that anything said by Ledeen (or anyone else for that matter) so far is, y'know, wrong. Instead, you launched into a tirade of ad hominem attacks first against Ledeen, then the Iraq war, then neocons in general ... all the while ignoring the substance of what I was posting about to begin with.
Okay, let's put you on the spot. How do you think we should deal with Syria and Iran? And don't just tell me what we shouldn't do, that's too easy. If Ledeen is such a self-apparent hack, let's here your thoughts on the topic as a foreign policy expert.
Ignoring that you're the only one here saying that neocons are promoting further military campaigns in the absence of evidence (Ledeen isn't with respect to Syria or Iran, as I've attempted to explain to you). So are you trying to create a revolutionary vanguard that will eventually overwhelm the neocon colossus? You aren't the only one who can use Marxist references to make cheap shots, you see.
Neither am I and neither is anyone here, as might be more apparent to you if you actually read what we wrote before attacking it. We are all quite aware of the stakes in this particular situation, thank you very much. It is precisely for this reason that makes it so grating to deal with individuals such as yourself who seem to be of the opinion that we face a bigger threat from Ledeen and his fellow travelers than we do from the prospect of a nuclear Iran.
Ignoring that I'm not anonymous and that you are (for a variety of understandable reasons, I assume), I am quite happy to defend any of the substantive points or critiques you bring up. I do that here all the time with praktike, JC, AJL, etc. You want to argue credibly that we shouldn't believe the Iraqi confessions or something on a similar note, I'll be happy to listen to you. So far however, you aren't offering anything but vitriole (by your own admission) out of what you consider an attempt to deter my readers from indulging in yet another neocon crusade that no prominent neoconservative is advocating to begin with. You ever actually read An End To Evil, for example? If you're so damned angry at these neocons, you may at least want to familiarize yourself with what they actually say or believe in order to better refute them.
Ignoring the fact that there'd be no objective difference in terms of my professional work from what I would be doing if I signed up for the army from what I am doing now (as Joe, Robi, and others who have seen my professional work can likely attest to) except I couldn't speak nearly as freely with you in this manner, I doubt that my being in the military or lack thereof would have little influence over whether my arguments hold water. This is one of the reasons that makes your criticism of Ledeen's points so hollow IMO - you're acting the man, not his argument.
That's my point. Buchanan and his respective fellow travelers have pretty much carved a niche out for themselves as the embodiment of the anti-war US right. You really expect that he'd retain his alliance with Justin in the absence of their common foe?
No, Buchanan prefers to spend his time indulging in the opinion that the current threat is a natural reaction to US imperialism as well as that the whole threat is cooked up by a Jewish cabal whose true loyalties lie with Israel rather than the US. This basically an exercise in doublethink, and to anybody who hasn't already drank the Kool Aid it sounds a good deal like the same quasi anti-Semitic clap-trap that any number of people on the right and the left have been condemning Buchanan about for years. This stuff struck me as nothing short of absurd before I actually got the opportunity to meet and interact with many of the people that Buchanan and his fellow travelers hate with such a vengeance. Having met and interacted with them, it went from being bizarre to being just ridiculous absurd. And that, to be quite frank, is exactly how it looks to people who haven't drank the Kool Aid if you accept whole-heartedly the AmCon line that the war in Iraq was launched for the benefit of Israel. The absurdity becomes even clearer if you start adding any of the other colorful characters that are included in expanded variations of these kinds of ramblings.
That said, all I said in this particular post was that I want to know if these Iraqi confessions about the nature and extent of foreign involvement in the insurgency are true and if so why we haven't heard about it here. Prior to that, I believe my last piece was a break-down on the Van Gogh murder. You want to take issue with the rhetoric, assessments, and forecasts made in those and other posts that's fine, plenty of people have in the past and will again in the future.
But first you would have to actually read what I write.
re: Iran declaring war on the U.S.
I thought this was old news (which was revisited in recent court cases and the press (?)). Didn't Iran's intelligence service and military began direct operations against U.S. personnel in Lebanon back in the 80s? Iran had IRG soldiers based (covertly?) in Lebanon that manned a military compound where the kidnapped were held. I think I remember that one or more of the kidnapped were even sent back to Iran for interrogation (and we found out about it, and demanded their direct return).
re: regime change and the meaning of sovereign.
Perhaps only a freely elected government (that stands for regular re-election by a fully enfranchised public) can / should be deemed truly sovereign (ie. defined as self-governed and not ruled by any other "state"). Where "self" and "state" cannot today mean a rule by a minority of the public (or a cabal or a family or an individual) by any current meaning of self-governed (i.e. we clearly no longer respect what was the divine right of kings, or rights usurped by dictators or minorities). And the phrase regime change is not quite correct. The term "regime" suggests a minority group in control, and an oppressive government. To change from one regime to another "regime" is not the goal. To move from a regime to self-government (and sovereignty) is the goal. How this is done is what's at issue. It's wonderful (near miraculous given its historical frequency, and remembering to count the 100M murdered and 1B enslaved against Marxism's fall) when a peaceful revolution from within succeeds. But it most often happens by force, and is most bloody when accomplished from within, and least bloody when imposed from without.
(nice blog btw, and good words and work, D.D.)
I would like to apologise for responding to stickler's ad hom attacks on the Ledeens on this thread. The topic is not germaine to the contents of this thread, and I should have just pointed that out, as Joe did, and been drawn into defending two fine people that have made valuable contributions to fighting the WoT. So sorry.
Dude, it's like so not working.
Perhaps you can explain what sarcasm and derision have to do with rational debate. You are another troll, likely suffering from BDS.
Umm, not been drawn...
Lurker, much better response than mine. ;)
From AP "He claimed he infiltrated into Iraq in 2001, about two years before the U.S. invasion, because Syrian intelligence was convinced that American military action loomed. "
Does this pass the "smell test"? Does it seem credible to anyone?
Maybe claims in US funded propaganda organs do not need to pass a reality check. 2 years before April 2003 was April 2001 (before 9/11/01).
If this "confession" is true, the Syrians are "evil masterminds" with an unprecedented omniscience.