Lost in the confusion of arcane statistics, detailed military strategies, mind-numbing internal Iraqi political maneuverings and a sullen, unemotional delivery, President Bush, in his speech this evening, actually found time to let Iran (& Syria) know that he will attack their meddling even if it means crossing borders into their countries to blow things up.
Few, if any, commentators have noted this telling paragraph that showed up just a little more than half-way through the speech (full text at Drudge). Here is the key paragraph:
“Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”
The ever-perceptive Hugh Hewitt also noticed this warning and comments:
“Crucially Iran heard a hint of measures beyond the borders of Iran, though in the sort of terms that none can object to. When the president spoke of destroying the networks aiding the terrorists, he meant the Quds Brigades and the other Iranian agents at work in Iraq, and the placement of the paragraph cannot be misunderstood.”
I, for one, did not misunderstand the message. I don't believe that Iran and Syria will misunderstand it, either.
In any case, these words provide, for the first time, a genuine justification for American military power to cross borders into Iran and/or Syria and attack targets that are related to the training, supplying and arming of insurgents or militias inside of Iraq.
Personally, I believe that this should have been deemed worthy of an entire speech in and of itself . . . most properly delivered by the US Ambassador to the United Nations.
But, nevertheless, Bush has now put Iran and Syria on notice that they have worn out their welcome in Iraq . . . at least as far as the American Commander-In-Chief is concerned.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - D'oh
Funny, isn't this what I gave you to "chew on" in your other thread?
Interesting choice of words with "justification". We'll see how the Hill feels about it, Hagel's words today alone, along with other GOP stalwarts, should give pause to thoughts of further adventurism.
"time wounds all heels"
2 - SHARK
BOP, you are one of the most simple-minded 'political writers' on BC.
That's not an insult, I love child-like 'art'.
I'm a big fan of Klee, Chinatsu Ban, some periods of Picasso, Pollack...
and you.
Most Americans heard the hoofbeats of the Four Horses of the Bush Apocalypse, but YOU apparently heard John Wayne riding up to threaten the Islamic World with a nice sock on the jaw.
========
re: the point WHERE BUSH THREATENED WAR with at least TWO OTHER NATIONS:
BoP: "...Few, if any, commentators have noted this telling paragraph that showed up just a little more than half-way through the speech..."
Dude: about 150,000,000 people sat up in their chairs and so, "OH SHIT!!" -- including ALL the commentators on MS_NBC, which is what I happened to be watching.
OTHER MOMENTS THAT STUCK OUT:
+++ Bush saying this war on terror would not see a ceremony aboard a ship like our father/grandfathers saw in WW II... while Shark pictured ChickenHawk Flyboy landing on an aircraft carrier beneath a "MISSION ACCOPMLISHED" sign.
+++ Bush saying if we leave Iraq, it could turn into a haven/training ground for anti-US terrorists.
Shark and a few million other *thinking people : "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. That happened in April of 03. Thanks George!"
*sorry to leave you out on this one, BoP.
3 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
BoP,
Bush's statement is not news, it is merely the recognition by your brave leader that US or Israeli secret opps have gotten coverage.
4 - Nancy
I see a renewal of the draft a-comin'... also no news to anybody with half a functioning brain cell.
W's rattling his saber, but where's he gonna get all these troops? He wants 22K+ more in Iraq, Afghanistan is acting out again, he's just started more action in Somalia - and now he wants to bait Iran & Syria into striking so he can go play there too? We don't have that many forces to go around (unless he wants to completely evacuate our bases in, say, S. Korea). Current reserve forces are already serving forcibly extended 3rd & 4th deployments, to the point where morale is so bad they didn't have enough guys at Ft. Benning yesterday willing to cheer the Decider In Chief at every turn, so they had to bus a few in from elsewhere. Some of these guys are already serving in what equates to involuntary indentured open-ended servitude & the families in general are NOT very happy either.
Per the WP this ayem, even a surprising no. of GOP congressmaggots are defecting & refusing to support W's moronic proposals; seems the natives back home, i.e. the constitutents, are really getting restless; after all, they sent their message with the election, and Bush is still ignoring it with might & main.
What he's going to do, of course, as D'Oh pointed out, is try to force an end run around congress refusing to fund his war by getting Iran or some other idiots to bite, giving him an excuse to retaliate; at that point, congress would have no choice but to go along & fund whatever he wants, or be labelled as cowards & appeasers who don't support the troops - the usual Bush/Cheney smear against everyone who doesn't agree with them.
Here's hoping someone in Tehran has enough smarts to be able to restrain the rest of the crew into playing into W's hands, altho if I were in their place, perhaps I would want to engage since anything that could weaken the US and/or Bush would be fine by me. On that score I don't know, as I'm not up to snuff on how well-armed Mahmoud D. is, altho lately he seems to be hinting he's willing to roll into it with anybody who thinks they want a piece of him.
Congress needs to get a spine & a will to resist no matter what names are lobbed at them by Rove/Cheney, to retort that the best support for the troops would be to avoid escalation of engagement & bring them home. As for the Iraqis, as I've said ad nauseam previously, I don't give a rat's ass about them. I don't care if they live under some Saddam wannabe; I don't care if they don't have jobs; I don't care if they don't live in refurbished cities with the finest schools; I don't care if they shoot each other to shreds until every man, woman, & child in the place is dead. I. Don't. Care. And I suspect a helluva lot of other Americans don't either, anymore, if they ever did.
Bush wants to establish jobs banks for Iraqis. What about jobs banks for Americans? Aren't we exotic enough for him? Bush wants to rebuild trashed Iraqi cities. What's wrong with rebuilding New Orleans, or refurbishing Detroit or any other number of crumbling US cities? Bush wants to rebuild & improve the Iraqi infrastructures for power, etc. Apparently it's missed his limited attention span that the US power grid is 45 years too old & failing fast?
If Bush wants to be a saviour to Iraq, then that idiotic, worthless bastard should resign his position, renounce his citizenship, & move to Iraq & run for office there. He sure as hell shouldn't be doing this on MY dime, as MY president. And his excuse that it's better to do it there than here is so lame, I didn't believe it even when I first heard it, let alone these days. His problem is, he thinks we're all as stupid as he is, and for a sizable portion of Americans, he's been right. After all, the half-wits voted him into office. Twice.
He's either a completely assinine, stupid maniac, or he's worse, he's a coldblooded monster of indifference, willing to sacrifice any number of lives for his presidential legacy - in which case he belongs in a court & than hanged just like his buddy, Saddam.
5 - Cyrus the Great
Bop,
It seems that u r very excited about the possibility of a new war. This is nothing new. Just trend in the policy which is now publicized. Anyway, I can promise to you, it is not going to be a cake walk. We don't like the regime, but we will defend our country. We have been watching Iraq, nobody wants to have the same experience. No, sir. Keep your democracy for yourself and eat it. We will change this regime from inside if got the chance. This can not happen when threat of a destructive war is above our head. Diplomacy is the answer to middle east problem. 20k more troops to go to war with Iran. You got kidding me! In one of our recent war games, 700k troops were mobolized in few days all across Iraq border. We have solution for air superiority too. By the way don't forget Korean war, when Russian jet fighters were in sky with N Korean flags. Don't you think Putin is a SOB enough to send hundred of their jets to Iranian air space and let Iran's groung forces sloughter Americans? IT IS NOT GOING TO BE EASY!
6 - Bird of Paradise
Cyrus, I am not excited about any form of military conflict. I am a Christian with a family heritage (and a personal inclination) towards pacifism. In this, and in all my posts, I am not so much an advocate as I am an observer and a commentator on events.
This post is just that, an observation and a comment on it. Don't read more into it that that.
By the way, Bush does not need to declare war on Iran. Iran already declared war on the United States when it stormed the US Embassy in Tehran 28 years ago and when it provided the funds and training for the blowing up of the US Marine compound in Beiruit several years later.
Iran wants to expand its power and influence in the Middle East. The United States does not want Iran to exapand its power and influence in the Middle East. Iran has shown that it is willing to destabalize sovereign nations and kill American soldiers and Middle Eastern civilians in order to further its influence.
The United States can either let Iran have its way (which would be against our national interests), negotiate with Iran (we have tried this repeatedly and have gotten nowhere except to provide entertainment and amusement for Iran's leadership) or attempt to physically contain Iran's expansionism.
It is clear from Iran's posturing (and you have confirmed this repeatedly in your comments) that Iran's response to any American response will be to escalate the violence incrementally, forcing America to be drawn into an ever-increasing cycle of violence or to back down.
It is a savvy and sophisticated strategy of bluff and counter-bluff. With Saddam we called his bluff and he folded. Iran will not fold like Iraq. The myth of Pandora's box comes to mind.
Nobody . . . I mean nobody in their right mind wants to enter an outright war with Iran. But I am convinced that, for better or for worse, we will see the United States confronting Iran far more boldly in Iraq (and possibly in Lebanon) than we have seen in the past. The recent assault on the Iranian "consulate" in Kurdistan seems to be part of this new strategy.
I don't know where it will lead. I'm sure Iran will have a way of responding. The current political and religious leadership in Iran is willing to bear whatever price it takes to achieve its expansionist objectives. They are betting that the United States does not have the will to prevent it from doing so.
Personally, I hope Iran folds up like a card table. But I don't think the United States has the political will to do what is necessary to contain the agression.
7 - Bird of Paradise
By the way, it never crossed my mind that the United States would send ground forces into Iran (except to perhaps blow up an IED factory near the Iraqi border). A symbolic, stratigic air strike could be possible, however. I'm not saying I support this idea or even oppose it.
I'm just making an observation and a comment.
I am, in this case, more interested in reading other people's opinions than in offering my own.
8 - LAWRENCE PETERS
Thats like Syria invading Cuba and telling the US to stay out of the regi0n. Bush is such an ass.
9 - conscience
With the perspective of history the president will eventually be seen as protecting America in the best way possible, by attacking extremist looneys where they live instead of on American soil. Sort of like WWII. Attack Pearl Harbor and for the next four years the German and Jap extremists had to run for cover! If you left wing whiners would read history and quit looking for handouts from the rest of us there would be clear understanding of how the world really is. Left wing POOR whiners are poor because they just don't understand about the connection between WORK and MONEY. Hello! Look at that pathetic bunch in New Orleans. They were slackers shooting at rescue choppers. Still a rat hole.
10 - Doug
Nancy: Do you not care that you (I.e., your country) will gain no respect or cooperation from anywhere in the world until we work to unravel the mess that we (Your president, in particular) have created?
Bird: Was Iraq not a sovereign country when "Dumbo the President" made the personal decision that we need to invade it? So, please remind me, where did our right to invade Iraq come from????
Thank you. :-)
11 - Buhlah Halhub
The US shouldn't mess with those crazy people. They're determined to bring on Armageddon. Let Russia deal with them. Another Stalin will kick their arses to hell.
I say sit back and let them destroy themselves. Like judge Judy says, "Some people are too dumb to live."
12 - Buhlah Halhub
The US shouldn't mess with those crazy people. They're determined to bring on Armageddon. Let Russia deal with them. Another Stalin will kick their arses to hell.
I say sit back and let them destroy themselves. Like judge Judy says, "Some people are too dumb to live."
13 - Martin Lav
While it may be obvious that BUSHCO. is preparing the world for an inevitable strike on an Iranian or Syrian dirt road transporting bread or medicine, it should be just as obvious with what he left out of his speech.
PAKISTAN.
When is he going to hit the supply-lines there that support, fund and provide haven to the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan?
14 - Bird of Paradise
Doug, Iraq started a war with the west when it invaded Kuwait. An international coalition entered that war, drove Iraq out of Kuwait and defeated Iraq. Rather than continue the fighting until Saddam actually surrendered, the coalition negotiated a cease-fire which said that, if Iraq followed certain restraints on its military, etc., the coalition would end the war, leaving Saddam's government in place.
Saddam agreed to these terms, signed them and then repeatedly violated them, for all legal purposes abrogating the cease-fire.
The coalition, and all members of it, were no longer bound by the cease-fire for many years. Without a cease-fire agreement the war, which was never actually concluded, could be renewed at any time.
By virtue of the cease-fire agreement it signed, Iraq under Saddam remained sovereign ON THE CONDITION that they kept the agreement.
When they violated it they forfeited their right to sovereignty.
While many in the coalition resisted re-entering the war the United States and many others chose to call Saddam's bluff.
Under the terms of the violated cease-fire agreement they had every legal right to re-engage Iraq AS IF THE FIRST GULF WAR HAD NEVER HAD A CEASE-FIRE.
The issue to be debated is not whether Bush acted illegally in invading a sovereign nation (which he did . . . along with permission from the US Congress, by the way) but whether it was a reasonable policy decision at the time based on what was then known and whether the desired outcome could be considered reasonably attainable (albeit risky).
THAT is worth debate. The legality/illegality issue is so far removed from reality that it serves no purpose other than to fuel unconstructive anger and distract from the real issues that confront us.
15 - Doug
Pardon me, Bird, but which specific terms of the cease-fire agreement did Iraq violate?
Thanks :-)
16 - Bird of Paradise
Doug, In response to your question I Googled "Iraq ceasefire violations" and came up with the following results. If you really want an answer to your questions you can find plenty of examples in these selections (this is not exhaustive, I spent 15 minutes on this):
Security Council Warns Iraqis to Halt Cease-Fire Violations 1992
Note: In order to "fool" the blogcritics limit on the number or webpage citations in a comment I have intentionally left off one of the three "w"s in each link address [I have restored and correctly formatted the links for you BoP. Comments Editor]
UN Cease-Fire Agreement for the First Gulf War 1990
USIA Statement 1991
The Security Council has passed nearly 60 resolutions involving Iraq since it invaded Kuwait in 1990. These include: (1) Resolution 660, regarding its illegal invasion of Kuwait; (2) Resolution 678, authorizing U.N. member states cooperating with Kuwait "to use all necessary means" to implement resolutions calling for the end of Iraq's occupation of and withdrawal of forces from Kuwaiti territory and to "restore international peace and security in the area"; (3) Resolution 686, ordering Iraq to release prisoners of the Gulf War, return Kuwaiti property seized during the war, and pay damages resulting from the war; and (4) Resolution 687, requiring it to "unconditionally accept" the removal, destruction, or rendering harmless of all WMD and ballistic missiles with a range greater that 150 kilometers, allow weapons inspectors to operate in Iraq, and pledge not to seek to develop or acquire such weapons in the future.
Iraq violated each of the above resolutions. It had to be forcibly evicted from Kuwait and continues to defy the U.N.-sanctioned no-fly zones. Iraq has not paid reparations for the war, has not returned illegally seized property, and has not freed all prisoners taken during the war. In violation of the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, Iraq routinely interfered with weapons inspectors and barred them entirely in 1998. Intelligence and statements of defectors provide ample evidence that Iraq still possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
September 2002
Talk of the Nation, November 5, 1998 • Iraq halts all United Nations weapons inspections until the U.N. Security Council reviews international sanctions against them. Military force could be used if Iraq continues to defy the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire agreement. From NPR's Talk of the Nation
Here's an interesting chronological history of events... regarding our topic you can begin reading with 1991 ff
Here's the UN view of compliance in a resolution passed in 2002
17 - Cyrus the Great
BoP,
You wrote:
"negotiate with Iran (we have tried this repeatedly and have gotten nowhere except to provide entertainment and amusement for Iran's leadership)"
Can you remind me when was that?
18 - Cyrus the Great
Bop,
U wrote:
"when it provided the funds and training for the blowing up of the US Marine compound in Beiruit several years later."
Where is your prove for that?
19 - Cyrus the Great
BoP,
Y wrote:
"Iran already declared war on the United States when it stormed the US Embassy in Tehran 28 years ago"
But, all of them were returned back in one piece and now multi-millioner thanks to money they got from Iran. On the other hand, Iranian passenger plane was shot down over Persian gulf with 290 passengers for no reason. All dead.
20 - Cyrus the Great
BoP,
U wrote:
"It is clear from Iran's posturing (and you have confirmed this repeatedly in your comments) that Iran's response to any American response will be to escalate the violence incrementally, forcing America to be drawn into an ever-increasing cycle of violence or to back down"
You misunderstand. I mean, Iran will not role over and die. But, will fight back. It is going to be pretty bloody. There is no need for another war. Diplomacy and negotiation is the answer.
21 - Bird of Paradise
Cyrus, you say the hostages were returned...Yes, but after 444 days, described by one of them at 95% bordom and 5% sheer hell. They all believed that they might be killed . . . up until the day they were released.
According to AP in a 2006 article, "The 52 hostages or their families have sought compensation from frozen Iranian assets through the courts, where their options are exhausted, and through Congress. Legislation is pending, but it has not moved past committee."
According to Wikipedia, "In 2000, the hostages and their families tried to sue Iran, unsuccessfully, under the Antiterrorism Act. They originally won the case when Iran failed to provide defense, but the U.S. State Department tried to put an end to the suit, fearing that it would make international relations difficult. As a result, a federal judge ruled that nothing could be done to repay the damages the hostages faced because of the agreement the U.S. made when the hostages were freed."
Terms of the agreement for their release included the US unfreezing $8 billion of Iranian money. None of this ever enriched those who had been taken hostage.
The Embassy, owned by and sovereign territory of the United States, remains in the hands of the Iranian government. Wikipedia has a lovely photo of the defaced Great Seal of the United States imbedded in the embassy wall as it looks today.
22 - Bird of Paradise
Cyrus, the United States broke off formal diplomatic relations with Iran in 1980. Iran has done nothing since to mend that relationship by addressing or reassessing the reasons that precipitated that break.
The US, through intermediaries and State Department liasons, has "unofficial" diplomatic contact with Iran via Switzerland. These folks were called to Iran just today to explain the US attack on the Iranian "consulate" in Kurdistan yesterday.
Unofficial diplomatic communication takes place every day between Iran and the United States. More formally, the United States has worked with a consortium of countries both within and without the United Nations to confront Iran with its violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We all know how well that has been received by Iran.
23 - Bird of Paradise
Cyrus, Again from Wikipedia, "In May 2003, in a case brought by the families of the 241 servicemen who were killed, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth declared that the Islamic Republic of Iran was responsible for the 1983 attack. Lamberth concluded that Hezbollah was formed under the auspices of the Iranian government, was completely reliant on Iran in 1983, and assisted Iranian Ministry of Information and Security agents in carrying out the operation.[7] Among the intelligence information initially uncovered by Thomas Fortune Fay, an attorney for the families of the victims, was a National Security Agency (NSA) intercept of a message sent from Iranian intelligence headquarters in Tehran to Hojjat ol-eslam Ali Akbar Mohtashemi, the Iranian ambassador in Damascus. As it was paraphrased by presiding U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, "The message directed the Iranian ambassador to contact Hussein Musawi, the leader of the terrorist group Islamic Amal, and to instruct him ... 'to take a spectacular action against the United States Marines.'"[3]
I have a personal friend who was held hostage in the Bekaa Valley for over a year during that same period. There is no doubt that those who held him operated out of Syria with links to Iran.
After all, the release of these hostages were negotiated by President Reagan's administration but cutting a deal with . . . Iran! ("Arms for Hostages").
Hzbollah had not yet been formally organized at that time but the seeds of its creation had already been planted and were well-rooted at that time.
24 - Doug
So, tell me BoP, which of these "resolutions" did Iraq agree to? Please do be specific, okay?
The point in your original post that I took issue with was that Iraq has/had violated terms of cease-fire that they agreed to. Let's stick to the issue you raised, rather than wandering tangentially, okay? :-)
25 - Bird of Paradise
Doug, Iraq signed the United Nations Cease-Fire Agreement. Later, because of multiple and defiant violations of the agreement and of unacceptable human rights violations within Iraq (attacks on civilian Kurds and Shi'ites) other restrictions, such as no-fly zones, were imposed.