-
MOSQUE DEBATE
What Do Arabs Think?
-
IRAN
Why Attacking Is a Horrible Idea
-
DEBATING WALT
Obama’s Doing Better Than We Think
Posted By Marc Lynch
Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 2:25 PM
Share
Most of the response to the WikiLeaks Afghanistan document release thus far has focused on the absence of major revelations, with most of the details reinforcing existing analysis rather than undermining official discourse about the war. A similar response is appropriate to a story making the rounds that the documents bolster the case for significant connections between Iran and al-Qaeda. Information in the documents, according to the Wall Street Journal, "appear to give new evidence of direct contacts between Iranian officials and the Taliban's and al Qaeda's senior leadership." What's more important in these stories than the details found in the documents about Iran's activities in Afghanistan is the attempt to spin them into a narrative of "Iranian ties to al-Qaeda" to bolster the weak case for an American attack on Iran.
There's no secret about Iran's role in Afghanistan, of course -- this has long been a staple of the debate over Afghan policy, and has also long been pointed out as an area of potential cooperation or conflict between Washington and Tehran. As with much of the rest of the WikiLeaks documents, much of what has been found about Iran's role in Afghanistan is already generally known, while other information in them is of dubious provenance. It's not like we didn't know about Iran and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. These new details do add to the case for taking Iran into account more effectively when designing Afghanistan policy, on both the military and political dimensions. But they don't add up to some kind of smoking gun demonstrating an Iranian alliance with al-Qaeda.
This use of the WikiLeaks documents brings back some old memories, of a long time ago (March 2006) in a galaxy far far away when the Pentagon posted a massive set of captured Iraqi documents on the internet without context. Analysts dived into them, mostly searching for a smoking gun on Iraqi WMD or ties to al-Qaeda. The right-wing blogs and magazines ran with a series of breathless announcements that something had been found proving one case or another. Each finding would dissolve when put into context or subjected to scrutiny, and at the end it only further confirmed the consensus (outside of the fever swamps, at least) that there had been no significant ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda. But the cumulative effect of each "revelation", even if subsequently discredited, probably fueled the conviction that such ties had existed and did help maintain support for the Iraq war among the faithful. The parallel isn't exact -- in this case, there actually is something real there, and these documents were released against the government's will -- but it does raise some flags about how such documents can be used and misused in the public debate.
That experience is something to remember when an "Iranian ties to al-Qaeda" claim, loosely backed by reference to these documents, enters into the argument to attack Iran which I expect to heat up in the coming few months. It would be irresponsible and misleading to use of the documents to bolster the weak case for war with Iran by raising the specter of "ties to al-Qaeda". But then, the agitation to attack Iran is already following the Iraq script so faithfully that it really only seems natural that we'd get some questionable or exaggerated reports about Iranian ties to al-Qaeda to complete the loop. The tragedy may not yet be over, but farce is impatiently waiting in the wings.
We've heard this tune before, although in a different key. The Iraq war was based on trumped-up intelligence - mostly fabricated after the war plans had been drawn. The argument for removing Saddam from power eventually has been reduced to the claim that "he was a bad man who used chemical weapons against his own people" and so he needed to be banished from power. That was all that was left after all other arguments were discredited. Really not our business.
Just as the 9-11 attacks were the product of a group of (mainly Saudi) stateless warriors directed by Osama bin Laden, and not anyone remotely close to Saddam Hussein, the resistance to our occupation of Afghanistan and our growing incursions into Pakistan have little to do with the long-standing grudge we bear against Iran. It was Iran who aided us early on in defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan, when we first invaded that god-forsaken place. They had their own reasons for doing so. And it is quite unlikely that Iran was sorry to see Saddam go; they fought an eight year war against him to defend their nation - a war that he initiated (we backed him in a losing effort, it may be recalled).
Is it likely that Iran may be helping the insurgents in Afghanistan? Very - they have an interest in the future alignmnent of a country they share a very long border with. Is it likely they have given aid to their Shiite brothers in Iraq to continue the conflict there? Certainly - they need a non-hostile nation on their western border. Is any of this an adequate justification for starting yet another war with an Islamic nation thousands of miles from our shores? Not very likely at all; such a war would be far more costly than most of our citizens could conceive. And it would be following our other strategic mistakes with yet another.
I would have posted this at Exum's blog, but it got blocked from my work filter while I was there. On the Op-Ed:
"I’m a researcher who studies Afghanistan" Okay, you know more about the Afghan War than 99.9999% of Americans. Is it at all relevant that you didn't learn anything new? Especially from two days of reading 200,000 pages?
"often supported by anonymous sources within the American military and intelligence services" It is always important news when official documentary evidence is produced, even when anonymous sources have said it before. This is actually a bigger problem than Exum. People seem to accept anonymous sources without any qualifications or reservations. The media certainly does, and it's now an acceptable practice to use anonymous sources as final proof.
"the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict have been compiling evidence of these casualties," Oh, CIVIC is tallying stats, huh? I bet those 7 people per day are really well informed about this! http://www.websitetrafficspy.com/www.civicworldwide.org The only websites I recognized in the 100 top pageranke site that link to civicworldwide.org were HRW and CodePink. But thanks for linking to it yourself.(sincere) Hopefully it's traffic will go up 1,000's of percent.
"I suspect that in the eyes of most Americans, using special operations teams to kill terrorists is one of the least controversial ways in which the government spends their tax dollars. " STFU. The issue is whether it is helping or not.
"It may even result in some people dying." So if the leaks help cause us to pull back from Afghanistan and save hundreds of lives and thousands of casualties, then it's worth it, right?
"It’s all too easy for them to find field reports to reaffirm their preconceived opinions about the war." Them=you too.
"Often what appears to be a two-way conflict between the government and an insurgency is better described as intertribal rivalry. And often that intertribal rivalry is worsened or overshadowed by the violent trade in drugs." Thank you for this. It will be a revelation for lots of readers, I suspect. How do we tell our enemies from our friends is the core problem in Afghanistan and doesn't get talked about enough.
"Mr. Assange says he is a journalist, but he is not. He is an activist, and to what end it is not clear." So what? Jeffrey Goldberg says he is a journalist, but he isn't either. (his end is clear though) The whole point of Wikileaks is that the documents speak for themselves. No one relies on Assange or you to tell them what the documents say. They can look for themselves. It's analogous to printing the Bible in native languages.
Loved your outrage at the end, feel better now? As for the "dearth of good policy options facing decision-makers", only if you eliminate retreat as an option (which you do).
The case for attack on Iran is strong enough on its internal merits. Elimination of the Irani influence on Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan will be just an icing on the cake.
I am boycotting Walt, you dumbass
I am giving my traffic to normal people.
The determination of Irani regime to destroy all opposition, the fact that it's clearly bent on regional expansion against its small Arab neighbors, the fact that it's determined to undermine America's efforts to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, the fact that it supports two groups bent on derailing any attempt at a peace process (Hamas and Hezbollah), and the little "unknown" fact that it is building a Bomb and openly promises to destroy Israel - those are the reasons to move against this regime. None of them are "hyped" or "invented", and those who oppose the use of force against Iran can't propose any other creditable strategy of removing this threat.
He speaks the truth.
the Colonialist Imperialists left those sorry colonies a loooong time ago. It's time to get over it.
So what is wrong with one or two or three wars.
Mr. Obama who promised that we will be out of Iraq, we are not, out of Afghanistan, we are not, is now yielding to demands from Tel-Aviv and its allies in Washington to go to war against Iran, the same Israeli allies and loyalists who took us to the war on Iraq where more than 5,000 brave men and women died and where more than 40,000 suffering from permanent injuries and of course not to mention almost of a TRILLION dollars down the drain. A TRILLION that could have done America and the American people great goods in in schools, in health, in transportation, in jobs, in science and technology and industry. Instead our Israeli friends are driving America toward bankruptcy. I always wonder if Bin Laden was alone in his attack on America or was America's"best" friend and its agents in the US were involved. Bin Laden is pushing America toward bankruptcy, the same way we pushed the Soviet Union toward bankruptcy. I wonder what kind of deal did Mr. Obama reached with Bibi Netanyahu during his last visit, and what is the price that America and the American people have to pay to appease Israel and its allies and agents inside and outside of government. No one so far proved Iran is developing the A-bomb, yet every one is silent, too coward, to speak up about Israel 150+ A-bombs. Iran did not attack any neighboring countries, while Israel did and continue to do so. I do not care for the kind of government or the kind of leadership Iran have. It is difficult to believe that the Al-Qaeda which is attacking Shiites in Iraq killing tens of thousands will side with Iran.. This is a big lies just like Saddam WMD.
? loves yous iran ahmedi
porno
porno izle
porno
porno izle
Alliance of convenience, not anything more
Why are people making such a big fuss about this discovery. This assertion was raised many times over in the past two years by U.S. commanders and the Afghan Government. In fact, I'm baffled that the Iran-Taliban-AQ connection isn't common knowledge already. Given iran's tendency to support insurgent and terrorist networks against U.S. objectives- regardless of ideological orientation- you would hope that officials in the Obama administration already arrived at this conclusion.
Lets not make the Iran-Taliban alliance more than it really is. The Iranian Government, the Taliban insurgency, and Al'Qaeda operatives have the same enemy in the United States and NATO. Other than anti-Americanism, Iran and the Taliban have very different goals in the region. So the idea that the U.S. now has to confront some new and strong threat is totally baseless and exaggerated. Opposing the U.S. presence is the only reason why all three are coming together, nothing more.
Remember how hostile the Taliban Government was towards the Iranian theocracy in the mid to late 1990's? Iranians were (and still are) viewed by the Taliban movement as apostates and unbelievers. This hostility rose to new heights when Taliban soldiers captured and assassinated eight Iranian diplomats, which almost propelled Iranian military retaliation.
This crisis may have erupted in the past, but the distrust between Iran and the Taliban is still there, which is why some in Tehran are worried about Hamid Karzai's negotiations with Taliban leaders.
At best, the Iran-Taliban-AQ connection is shallow and convenient. When U.S. troops finally withdraw from Afghanistan, I doubt that the Iranians will be working with members of Al'Qaeda anytime soon.
http://www.depetris.wordpress.com
The fuss, as you put it, is not about the “discovery” which is not a discovery at all; it is about the use that warmongers are poised to make of it. Pakistan is claiming the “leak” was a deliberate move by the US, which doesn’t mean the claim is true but it does demonstrate what some at least find feasible. It is all very well lauding a free press so long as you remember that it is double-edged and the public does not wield it.
O Father of Aardvarks, you forgot the best part of the story.
The news is that when Instadolt and the rest of his twodigit homies were begging for internet arabic translators for the Operation Iraqi Freedom docs, Hoekstra and Bush and EVERYONE with a clearance already knew that Uncle Saddam had no WMDs, and he was jus' pretending to spoof the Iranians.
Congressman Pete Hoekstra, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, described the rationale for the public disclosure of the documents as follows:
"We're hoping to unleash the power of the Internet, unleash the power of the blogosphere, to get through these documents and give us a better understanding of what was going on in Iraq before the war"
John Negroponte at first tried to delay the release of the documents, but softened his opposition to releasing after conversations with Rep. Hoekstra. President Bush directed Negroponte to release the documents and they were slowly being made available until they were taken offline in November 2006 due to security concerns.
According to Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, the release of the documents "looks like an effort to discover a retrospective justification for the war in Iraq."
Abu...can you dig it? Hoekstra, Bush and company already knew when they put the docs out.....
Saddams interviews are all dated 2004.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/index.htm
it appears the trailers have been parked right here in this comments section. its no wonder all the jobs are leaving america, look at the morons we have in this country.
well.....the Wikileaks are bringing us closer to the truth about the Bush admins rush to war.
the truth is, that Bush was too stupid to know that when muslims can vote, they vote for more Islam, not less.
The Bush doctrine and COIN are both just recipes for expensive, bloody failsauce.
where is Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in this report,i thought that al-Qaeda. financed by Saudi officials and trained in Pakistan territory ??
Al Qaeda IS financed by Saudi money and it IS training in Pakistan. But it has started a "satellite" program with Iran, sending a number of its fighters there to "train", and accepting Iranian money.
Iran cooperates with AQ when it absolutely NEEDS TO
And this is one of those times.
AQ-Iran connection not surprising
Iran has had a track record of cooperating with its traditional enemies in order to serve its ultimate objective, which is to oppose the U.S. and ISrael and to kill Americans. It is not surprising that they are training Taliban fighters and cooperating with Al Qaeda in the short run. I'm sure they think it's a short-term venture until 2011 when Barack Obama withdraws the troops from Afghanistan. Iran will then turn around and start killing all the taliban and AQ fighters it is currently helping.
ALliances shift. We "created" the Afghan freedom fighters, now we are fighting their elements. Iran fights with Al Qaeda, but when convenient, they ally with some of them. Some AQ members are even living in Iran. For example, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/03/usama-bin-laden-living-comfortably-iran-documentary-asserts/ and http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/12/200912211090437357.html and http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html and http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/13/iran-eases-grip-al-qaeda/....and....and....
It's not out of the question and in fact highly probable.
Certainly enough to state that Israel and America goverments (not People)have been associated with al Qaeda in the Iranian government has no relation. Most of these documents has been made.
But the Iranian connection to al-Qaida
In this case we can say that there should be. This is politics. Why the UK and the French government for more than 4 million people were victims in Rwanda to reach their political goals?
Iranian government for its stable government should not keep things somewhat in its surrounding countries to intervene?
If they do not like the fate of Rwanda will.
History shows that experience of all countries, especially countries: England, to reach their goals are willing to sacrifice millions. Why
It must be said that all the countries we issue a single domestic issue. Lack of political freedom, social security Nyvd in many cities and the bad economic situation
We like our own political connections to Malaysia. This makes our country will progress.
Marc Lynch is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.
Read More
Sept. / Oct. 2010
-
Cover Story:
-
Exclusive:
-
Feature:
(21)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE