Con Coughlin is one of the best British journalists on the military/intelligence/national security beat, and he is privy to the thinking of top policy people and field commanders. In today’s “Telegraph” he picks up on a theme I raised yesterday: that both Washington and London are grudgingly coming to accept the fact that Iran is waging war against us in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Coughlin carefully spells out the implications of the accusation against a top British military aide in Afghanistan. Corporal Daniel James–the personal interpreter for the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan–is charged with giving the Iranians information that “prejudic(es) the safety of the (British) state.” No matter how this case is ultimately resolved, Coughlin writes, the fact that Iran is interested in recruiting such people confirms the mullahs’ desire to ensure the failure of our mission.
Until recently, as Coughlin notes, “NATO commanders have appeared reluctant to even discuss the possibility that the Iranians might have their own agenda in upsetting coalition attempts to establish an effective government.” And this reluctance was obviously peculiar to anyone who knew anything about Iran’s real activities in the region. Commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan always knew that the Iranians had helped “orchestrate the roadside bombs that have killed and maimed so many soldiers,” and are “actively supporting and providing equipment to Taliban-related groups” in Afghanistan.
And so we have Prime Minister Blair openly denouncing the Islamic Republic in language not even President Bush has used.
It’s quite a change, and a welcome one, although there was never any excuse for the willful and deliberate refusal to see what Iran has been up to since 2001. For it was in December of that momentous year that the American Government received detailed information about Iranian plans to kill American forces in Afghanistan. I was present at meetings in Rome at which that information was given, and I took great satisfaction when I was later informed that the information was correct, and had undoubtedly saved American lives in Afghanistan.
But immediately thereafter, Secretary of State Powell and Director of Central Intelligence Tenet threw a hissy fit, and demanded an immediate and total end to all contacts with those people. In a grotesque confirmation that no good deed goes unpunished, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld even instructed his employees in the Office of the Secretary of Defense to terminate all contacts with Iranians, especially “Iranian dissidents.” His man in charge of intelligence, Stephen Cambone–now blessedly on his way out–has refused even to reply to repeated requests to discuss the matter, even though the sources were proven reliable, and the information saved the lives of our troops. On this subject, there does not seem to have been any disagreement between Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet, Hadley, Hayden and Negroponte. None of them wanted to know about the murderous activities of the Iranians. Just ask Imad Mughniyah, the world’s most lethal killer. Our leaders didn’t want to know about Mughniyah’s plans to fly to Damascus with Ahmadi-Nezhad some months ago, and so the operational godfather of Hizbollah was untouched during his meetings with Syrian leaders and his counterparts from other terrorist gangs.
Why the refusal to see Iran for what it is? Coughlin explains it in a purely military context. He says that NATO troops have enough to do, fighting Taliban units in southern Afghanistan, and are just not prepared to extend their field of operations to the north and west. But, as he says, that would necessarily change if, as appears to be case, our leaders can no longer ignore the evidence.
I think the self-blinding of the West took place at a higher, and more political, level. I blame the intelligence community and the diplomats. They were the ones who refused to accept information from proven sources, because that information was in total conflict with the alternate version of reality they sold to the president: that Iran had been helpful to us in Afghanistan, that there were “moderates” in Tehran with whom we could work, and that a “grand bargain” could be struck, if only we made nice to the mullahs.
And of course I blame the president and his people–from his personal staff to the National Security Council people in charge of the region and the war–who bought the alternate reality. They had numerous opportunities to listen to the truth, and invariably declined.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said of Jimmy Carter that he could not distinguish between his friends and his enemies, and so he had ended by accepting his enemies’ view of the world. The same can be said of George W. Bush with regard to Iran.
And still we dither.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
24 Comments
patrick neid:this circle jerk will always lead back to the essential question: are we in a war with terrorists/radical islam and the states that sponsor them?
yes or no? simple answer please. save all the UN speak for the losers that love Darfur and Rwanda type results.
if the answer is no then lets just stop crying the blues about murderous thugs. history is littered with them. let them keep killing until they die natural deaths–after all they couldn’t possibly kill all of us?!
however if the answer is yes then why are the leaders and the advisers of iran, syria, sudan, hamas, hezzbollah and al sadr still alive? they are the world’s leading terror leaders. until they are all killed at the same time unannounced, this war is bullshit. we deserve every bad thing that may befall us–and many things are being planned by these folks right now. that future blood will be on the hands of all you nuanced thinkers who think war is some kind of video version of the old board game “Diplomacy”. letting our soldiers and civilians get killed everyday to placate world opinion and do the right thing is contemptible.
we need Sherman’s march to the sea. otherwise we should shut up and bring the troops home and give them their caliphate.
Dec 22, 2006 - 6:50 pm Dan:That’s a concise and powerful post, Dr. Ledeen.
But I think our leaders unfortunately can, and will, continue to ignore the evidence.
Have you ever written a comment or a review on the works of the strategist du jour, Thomas P. Barnett? If so, could you link to it, for I’d like to read it. He’s one of the more prominent sponsors of “the grand bargain.” And I’d dearly like to read your take on his works.
From ML:
No I haven’t read anything by Thomas Barnett. I try very hard to be selective in my reading/listening/watching; I’m well past 30, after all, and don’t have unlimited time, so I’m looking for authors who can help me understand.
If you see what I mean…
Dec 23, 2006 - 4:19 am drellberg:The President recently announced (twice, I think) that 5900 terrorists had been captured in Iraq over two months. If this is representative, 3K /Mo for 6 years (2003-2008), then the minimum dead just in Iraq before we leave must be around 250K. Add in Afghanistan. Add the number of terrorists killed in fighting amongst themselves. And so forth. It seems to me to follow that the terror masters are sending an astonishingly large and steady stream of young jihadists to near certain death.
I am a huge, huge, huge fan of Dr. Ledeen. One of my favorites of his NRO articles talks about the number of Arab leaders who have died or will die soon because of age or disease. Brilliant!
What I have never understood, though, is the “faster, please,” and I know that is crucial. Because all of the evidence given seems to suggest that time is on our side rather than the terror masters. I have always figured that this is a war of attrition. It will take decades. Is the enemy not expending its military and cultural capital at a far faster rate than us? And don’t they have much less to begin with? What am I missing? Explain, please!
ML:
How wonderful to find an optimist! Thanks for that. I have always believed we would win, but if we continue like this we’re going to lose a lot of lives, and it seems so unnecessary…since the keystone of the terror network, Iran, is so vulnerable to political warfare. That’s why “Faster, Please!”
And, sadly, we could in fact lose. If the next wave of American leaders surrender and leave the Mideast, there will undoubtedly be a new wave of terrorism against the West, and it will be much more difficult. Indeed, I expect we will see more terrorism soon. The Brits are predicting an attack during the holidays, for example.
The more we dither, the greater our losses, and the greater the chance of our ultimate defeat.
Dec 23, 2006 - 10:49 am Bill:Great article and most informative.
Dec 23, 2006 - 12:06 pm Colin:The President is a person of principles ,I pray his preception of our enemy change . Treat these power hungry thugs like a cancer . Apply surgery to remove the tumor. We must act to cause division among our enemies .
Isolate those who love death and bring others to the test …do they want liberty or do they want death. We have to carry out the task . Our military should br allowed to be ruthless when necessary in carrying this out … change the rules of engagement this is war . We decieve ourselves by not bringing pressure to eradicate this cancer …it will come back . Everyday Americans believe that freedom is bought with blood . No talk will change our enemies thirst for control .The American Revolution , a third of the people were for independence , a third were in different , and the other third were against it. So we don’t need a consensus to do what we must do to fight and survive this ! We need LEADERSHIP .
Isn’t the other reason for this seemingly willful blindness to Iranian depredations the idea that open conflict with Tehran might engender a rally-round-the-flag, nationalist response, weakening reformist forces? I have no idea how reasonable this position is or at various times may have been, how much weight it deserves in any calculation, but I seem to recall that it has appeared in various forms in Mr. Ledeen’s past writings, at least when the idea of military action against the regime or its interests has in the past been broached.
How damaging would it be, today, in the Iranian domestic context to be cast as tools of the US/Great Satan or as tools of Israel? How much more or less damaging does this charge become in the context of heightened US and allied bellicosity, covert action, threats, etc.? What do the recent election results tell us?
Are we again at the point where attacks from the outside on the regime might perversely work to strengthen its position, or are we indeed at a point where a little extra pressure might begin to topple it? Again, what and who could really tell us? Is it just a roll of the dice?
Given the unpredictability of events and the current focus of US and world attention in Iraq, might own preference would be for an Aachem’s razor approach: The simpler and more direct the policy, the better - up to and including military responses to military actions. Otherwise, faster what exactly?
From ML:
I doubt anyone knows what, if anything, could provoke the Iranian people to rally round Khamenei and Ahmadi-Nezhad, if there were a chance of liberation from the mullahs. Maybe an invasion would provoke some to do this, as many people say, but I can’t imagine what they base this prediction on.
You ask an excellent question: wouldn’t it be terribly dangerous for someone to be seen as having American support? Yes, if it’s only a person here, a person there. But if it’s thousands or millions of people, that’s different. And all those people will have chosen sides, we are certainly in no position to force them to fight against the regime.
Dec 23, 2006 - 2:09 pm Judith Weinstein:You’d think America as a superpower is too sophisticated to based its defense policy on “wishful thinking,” overriding contrary blatant evidence that demands offensive fighting & clear-sighted definition of our enemy. As long as the White House remains amorphous about naming the barbaric Islamo-fascist enemy that we face, including the Iranian Jihadist imperialists, we will probably continue to just putter-around/hands-tied in Iraq w/ Iran’s proxies, & suffer great causalities, till we finally take the battle to the head of the snake. Clearly we need a strategy. Iran has one. Instead of going-after the terrorist training camps in Iran & Syria as US policy, we base our policy on “assumed” Iranian behavior that they’re seeking stability in Iraq & not mere distraction from their nuclear bomb making & imperialist designs.
On a smaller but similar scale, we have only to look to the Palestinian-Arab/Israel conflict to understand the futility of policy based on wishful thinking & appeasement of terrorists…Condi Rice, a neophyte w/ amoral Machiavellian leanings, extols the virtues of Mohammad Abas, head of Arafat’s Fatah terrorists, granting him, of late, $300 million, 7000 rifles, and US army training, under the “hope” that he will embrace democracy & not use these US gifts against Israel. LOL, Fatah is no different than Hamas, they all call for death to America & Israel, but one guy wears a suit when he does it. (Incidentally, Abas’s Fatah organization is responsible for more suicide attacks against Israel than Hamas is.) The bigger laugh is Bush’s push for a Palestinian state for an otherwise dissident group elevated to sovereign status under Oslo. Again, policy based on wishful thinking contrary to the facts-on-the-ground; proving a Palestinian state will just be another terrorist haven, as it is already swarming w/ Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah & Iranian arms & money.
Bush was once strong against coddling dictators. Sadly it takes a leader who is a ruthless pragmatist to take a forthright/non-pc stand against Iran & Syria & be willing, as you say, to make sacrifices now to avoid greater ones in the future…all the while, “teaching” the American public of the nature of the Islamo-fascist enemy & the grave imperative of our actions in this existential fight for Western civilization, no less.
Dec 23, 2006 - 2:22 pm Uzi:There’s a very old tradition in the US government of ignoring inconvenient truths when they might require a major change in foreign or defense policy.
No less a patriot than President Eisenhower has been reported to have quashed intelligence reports that American POW’s were being held in North Korea and used as slave laborers, years after the Armistice, because he feared that public outrage would force him to take America to war again in Korea.
And TR and his Secretary of State John Hay suppressed information that Ion Perdicaris of the “Perdicaris alive or the Raizuli dead” affair, was not really a US citizen.
President Reagan and just about everybody else ignored the evidence of Syrian President Hafez al Assad’s involvement in the 1982 assassination of Lebanese President Elect Bashir Gemayel, in order to maintain diplomatic relations with Syria.
And even today, any information in any way embarrassing to the Saudi Royal family is routinely swept under the rug at all levels of government.
Dec 24, 2006 - 1:38 am Infidel753:An excellent article. It is astonishing how the mistakes of the past are repeated. Again our leaders simply refuse to see the plain reality revealed by the words and deeds of a totalitarian ideology, perhaps because acknowledging the truth might make them feel impelled to take actions which are too daunting to contemplate.
I have a deep fear that the US will continue to let the matter of the Iranian nuclear program slide and slide, fiddle-faddling around with the UN and useless “sanctions” instead of taking action, until we wake up one morning and find that another six million Jews have been slaughtered. And we will wonder how we could have let this happen, when Ahmadi-Nezhad had telegraphed his intentions so clearly.
The difference between now and the days of Eisenhower or Reagan is information technology. There are too many channels for collecting information and distributing it directly to the people for anyone to control. Articles like this on the internet make it, at least, much more difficult for a few Machiavellian players to have the final say on what the people should and should not know.
Dec 24, 2006 - 10:36 am tuan:Michael, you’re so spot on as an analyst, but I’m afraid your first respondent, Patrick Neid, has the only appropriate responses at this late date, and they’re not sophist and analytical!
Dec 24, 2006 - 10:39 am Peg C.:The huns have passed the Po this time, they’ve overrun the Gates of Vienna this time. Dammit, they’re in the effing palace right here! and we’re about to lose all thrust of history, from the Greeks to Jefferson, falling into a Mad Max dark ages if we don’t squash them now.
Mr. Ledeen, you are brilliant as always. I like to be optimistic about the ultimate outcome, but I am 52 and am quite sure I will not see it. This is most definitely a Long War. It seems obvious we have not begun to fight, and that the past 5 years are a tea party compared to what will come. Definitely worse terrorist attacks on our and other soil, and it will take more and worse to convince the 40 - 50% in this country that cannot see past their self-involved noses that we are in a fight for our very existence. Many, many of us will be snuffed out before it is done, thanks to the statists, cowards, traitors, and fools.
Dec 24, 2006 - 10:51 am Vic:If you are being charitable you could chalk it up to a classic case of cognative dissonance. Of course the more likely explanation is a text book Sgt. Schultz psychosis. Even if your analysis has led you to conclude it is wise not to open up a second front before the first is decided, it’s folly to not respond at all to your enemy’s probes. Is it possible we are not getting the whole picture? Could we quietly be fighting a secret war to destablize the Mullahs and their minions (Iran and Syria) and to surveil and interdict the Syrian/Iraqi and Iranian/Iraqi borders. I can understand Soggy Bottom wanting to talk, talk, talk but defense and the NSC? At what point do we realize that in order for us to succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran’s turn must come now and not later?
Dec 24, 2006 - 10:58 am Michael Devereaux:I sigh sometimes at the news. At other times I rage. As we continue to stick our collective heads in the sands concerning the Islamofascist threat. Too few voices raising the alarm (such as the author here).
But then I accept the truism: To everything its own season.
We’re not ready yet. Our country is so much larger, so much more powerful economically and militarily, than we were in World War II. The attack at Pearl Harbor was a traumatic shock; the attack on the World Trade Center was simply not BIG enough. Not compared to our huge, enormous scale, in this, the most dominant country ever seen on the face of this Earth.
Perhaps the vast muddle is correct: Perhaps Iran and the rest of the Islamofascists cannot truly harm us. Perhaps we are right to wait and see.
And so I must wait. In the meantime, Israel will earn the wrath of the world when they must go it alone to eliminate the Iranian threat to their existence.
And on the realpolitik shall play.
Sigh. Rage.
Dec 24, 2006 - 1:01 pm Dennis:I agree with Tuan. We are somewhere along a path that could bring down human civilization several notches. If the radical (if there is a moderate will you please speak louder?) Muslim world spreads, cutting off world trade, history will record the next 100 years and the Second Dark Age.
Consider a world where the a group of mullahs sit over 80% of the world’s oil in Iran, Iraq, and Saudia Arabia. A world where Europe is under control of radical Muslims who drag the EU into a regressive state that no longer produces or consumes. A world where the US literally defends her borders against the world and the trade imbalance is a ghost because there will be no world trade in this scenario. Consider that situation in Iraq in Houston, Chicago, and LA. As in Ancient times, our population would plummet as trade no longer supported our lifestyle. This war is so much more than Bush. It may be the fight for Western Civ as we currently define it.
Dec 24, 2006 - 1:12 pm Pierre Legrand:Well one of the reasons we are so busy ignoring the threat of Iran is we still haven’t accepted the idea at the Government level that we are indeed in a religious war. In fact the same religious war that Islam has been waging since its inception…by sword or by persuasion we all must be convinced. Regardless of sect, regardless of country one common theme runs through Islam. All must submit.
We are allies with those who declare non violent methods to achieve the same ends as those who use violence. Confusion reigns.
From a post on my blog…More thoughts on the War against Islamic Terror
Dec 24, 2006 - 1:57 pm mark abrams:As to whether the enemy is all of Islam or merely a small percentage is something that cannot be settled easily since there is a sliding scale of participation in the war against the west. For that matter in any war by any group of people you will find those who wholeheartedly back the aims of the government all the way down to those who are against the war. As much as it is possible to avoid killing those on the enemies side who are against the war we should do our best to avoid. On the other hand we cannot sacrifice the chance to protect our citizens against the sort of attacks promised by our enemies simply to avoid collateral damage.
The Saudis (or at least factions therefof) seem to have decided that Iran is a threat that needs to be dealt with. So now the defenders of the kingdom (US and Britain) are encouraged to get on with it.
Dec 24, 2006 - 2:06 pm tom swift:Sorry, I don’t buy a word of it. The fact that intelligence personnel aren’t spilling their guts to the front pages does not imply that they’re too vague to know what’s going on. Of course Iran is an enemy, and has been for decades. But simply saying so won’t defeat them. Until the US is actually in a position to fight a war with Iran, there’s little point in talking it up. And when will it be in a position to fight a war with Iran? I certainly hope the intelligence types aren’t talking about that.
ML:
I think that’s inside-out. The spooks are supposed to report, not advocate. And you may have noticed that they certainly do spill their guts to the front page when they think it will advance their (feckless) policy dreams.
Dec 24, 2006 - 2:20 pm cfbleachers:There are an array of reasons why the West in general and America in particular have been slow to respond to the nefarious double dealling of the mullahs.
While I am perfectly willing to concede that intelligence failures are worth of some of the “blame”, I truly see a different combination of factors in play here.
The mullahs work in many ways, as I see it that make them somewhat similar to oranized crime. They shade all their dealings behind other “fronts”, much like the legitimate businesses that laundered money and concealed a host of “illicit goings on” throughout the web of organized backdoor dealings.
It seems to me that the media quite often romanticized, even glorified the rebelliousness, the daring, of the outlaw “everyman” taking on the establishment…the little guy vs. the big guy.
The Mullahfia…as it were, is quite nimbly working behind the scenes, moving pawns around the chessboard…so that someone else is doing the “front” work and they are quite content to reap the political benefits…and they keep a separate set of “books”, just to feed the press or any other nosy busybody. If China and Russia wish to finance some bootlegged goods, (and maybe France, …well it’s always nice to have a few judges in your pockets on the Security Council), and they can easily look the other way, as long as THEIR territories have been granted decent “protection”.
Half the American electorate has no stomach to take on the Mullahfia, they really can barely withstand lobbing a few missiles from 30,000 feet…the thought of conflict makes them tremble, unless of course…it’s with the home team…then they can be quite vicious.
The American media, really has devolved into a World Populist multi-tentacled arm of multicultural mush…a leftist’s newsletter, where facts are secondary to the message.
So, what we get back from the “news” relating to Iran, the Mullahfia, and, of course…our own work and intentions…is filtered through a prism that really doesn’t have much use for America, (or Israel)…and is primarily a vehicle for painting us as the bad guy in this twisted passion play.
Jimmy Carter’s pal, Michael Moore portrays the theocratic thugs…as “minutemen”. As does the Western Ministry of Media. (By the way, Jimmy Carter, not only can’t distinguish between his friends and enemies…Jimmy Carter has a vested interest in being an enemy to our friends and a friend to our enemies. He has cozied up to Michael Moore, an anarchist…because like his pal, Michael Moore… Jimmy Carter is a World Populist first, not an American first. He is not an American at heart, he only lives here…he’s invested not in his standing in America…but, in his standing among other World Populists. He’s a Citizen of the World, he just lives here. Sort of a Timeshare American.
And the differences between he and his buddy Michael Moore, are miniscule. They both are willing to openly publish lies, distortions and fudge the truth for the greater cause. Carter may dress in $2000 dollar suits and Moore like a slob…but underneath, they are the same man.
Michael Moore is an unmade bed, that quite apparently, Jimmy Carter wants to lie in.
And the reason we sit idly by and watch the Mullahfia foist Islamic gangsterism upon us…is that the Ministry of Media, leftist politicians and World Populists have so much of the West confused as to just who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.
The Ministry of Media, (including their Hollywood and campus branches) own the information stream for the most part. Where our opinions are shaped and formed for the masses…the Mullahfia are simply peasants who want to be left alone…and the Good Shepherd’s of the CIA won’t let them be.
Forget what the truth is…the World Populists and the leftists own the information stream, so they own the “truth”. And what they say, often would require a decoder ring to parse out the truth from it…and what they DON’T say or report…would require an archeological dig.
We won’t confront the Mullahfia…because…frankly…we don’t even control our own communication system to our public. We lost it a long time ago. And there doesn’t appear to be great strides in getting it back.
The Mullahfia are “minutemen” because…that’s the “truth” in our information stream…and who would have the stomach to take them on under that scenario?
From ML:
I love “mullahfia.” I think I’m gonna steal it, heh.
Dec 24, 2006 - 6:03 pm M. Simon:Dennis has it.
Trade is the key to civilization.
Decline and Fall
From ML:
You mean life is NOT a waterfall?
Dec 24, 2006 - 9:56 pm cfbleachers:Michael
Happy Holidays! It’s all yours. And anything else I write, …it’s the giving season, after all!
From ML:
Thanks. Just remember, plagiarism is the most sincere form of flattery…hoHO
Dec 25, 2006 - 12:16 pm Marty McCaffrey:Michael,
If we will become men with chests once again there is hope that life can be a waterfall…and that it will be sublime.
Merry Christmas all.
MJM
Dec 25, 2006 - 1:56 pm Ivan Lenin:Great article, Dr.Ledeen.
Dec 25, 2006 - 2:24 pm Dennis Carmichael:It looks like the “intelligence community and the diplomats” (which is often the same people) is where we should look into. To be successful, to do a good job for them, often means to work out a “diplomatic solution” - which can be the opposite of success for the country.
It’s a shame how poorly the US is fighting its propaganda war - compared to what we - the Soviets could listen to back in the 1980s. All we have in Iran is Radio Farda (whose stand seems to be rather moderate). Considering the advance in technology - and the number of people with satellite dishes - we could do much better. Especially if we concentrated on unmasking our enemies - instead of trying to make America look good.
Mister Ledeen,
I am in awe of your knowledge and introspect. I started reading your articles about
five years ago when a friend directed me to National Review Online (I also subscribed
to the dead-tree version).
I am a Viet Nam-era veteran (Naval Aviation) and worked in the trade the Navy taught
me for ten years after my Honorable Discharge. I have worked in the aerospace
industry as a technical writer for the past twenty years.
While working for Grumman aerospace as an F-14 engine technician at Point Mugu, CA,
I volunteered to move to Iran and train IIAF Homafars (equal to our warrant officers) on the
propulsion systems.
All this is getting to my experience in Iran form August to December 1978.
My living quarters was the largest hotel in Shiraz. I quickly moved in with a co-worker who had
signed up for a two year hitch - qualifying him for a three bedroom mansion with marble floors in another part of the city.
Being of average height, with a formidable beard, and tending to tan well, I could go unnoticed
on the city streets as long as I kept my mouth shut. The second day I went to the Bazzar and
purchased clothes to further conceal my “foreignness”. My roommate wasn’t so lucky - red hair
and freckles - he was constantly stared at whether walking or in a vehicle.
When I wasn’t at the airbase I cruised the entire city, mostly on a bicycle I purchased from a
Canadian family leaving the country after ten years of trying to spread the Gospel of Christ. They had been arrested more than they could count during their mission.
In the fifties I toured America with a boy’s chorus. I saw poverty and depravity – mostly in small southern towns where bathrooms and fountains had “white-only” signs. But the filth and depravity I saw in Iran was beyond anything I could have imagined here in the states.
Granted, I met some warm, wonderful Iranians - faithful moslems all. They prayed for peace daily, they said. Our neighbors competed to see who could have us for dinner. Most were trained/schooled in American or Britain.
In September 78’ things changed….
The Shah instituted a 10:00 pm curfew because of the violence urged by and led by anti-military,
anti-Westernization, anti-Shah imams. As the rioting worsened the curfew went to 9:00 pm. Still my new-found Iranian friends sought me out for conversation and fellowship. Later they would secretly apologize for having to ignore us lest they be seen as consorting with probable CIA agents.
I witnessed numerous atrocities brought about on both sides - the Islamic leaders directing assaults against the Shah’s military, and the military’s merciless attacks against demonstrators. No water canons there – guns and tanks against sticks and stones.
If an imam banged his chest and screamed for the people to rise up against the army, thousands would flock to the demonstration area chanting and throwing rocks. So every gathering (mostly at round-abouts) became a riot.
I was at one of those gatherings and came very close to being a victim of machine gun fire. The rioters did not burn buildings or otherwise destroy property. They mostly died. I watched more than twenty people throw themselves under tank treads thinking they could stop the tanks. The city would stink for days because some of those killed did not have relatives to retrieve their bodies. For the next few months I stayed on my roof and listened to the roar of screams and gunfire.
What struck me the most was the FEAR. Fear that the Shah’s spies would recognize and single them out, fear that neighbors would turn on them if they did not attend the demonstration.
Even then the elementary schools were teaching chants of “Yankee Go Home” – I heard it often. When I was with my roommate on the street kids would hurl rocks at us. We finally put a stop to it – by sewing Canadian flags on our clothes.
The riots became worse through the months and I was evacuated to Frankfurt. I will never forget the frustrations of educated Iranians wanting the best for their country, to bring it into the modern age. Thousands left Iran before the Embassy takeover a year later.
I knew Afganistan was the right move after 9/11 and I support our efforts in Iraq even though HOW we will win needs revisiting (being done). I also knew we would become the magnet or lightning rod in the Mideast. Wherever we go in that area, the islamo-fascists will follow. If we bring our troops home, the bombs will start going off in our malls and sports stadiums. We MUST defeat them on their turf.
The ISG wants us to talk to Iran and Syria? Outrageous! I really don’t think we have to initiate any hostilities with Iran – Israel will do that – but time is running out. God help us and Israel when Iran is capable of delivering nuclear warheads! The sky will fill with missiles.
Between you and Hanson (and other great NRO contributors) more of us are hearing the message of Iran as our enemy. Most Americans cannot comprehend the fanaticism that has come from decades of teaching “Death to America”. The closest I can come is:
You are Billy Graham (although I know he’s not a fanatic). What will it take to convince you to love the devil and do his deeds. It will take Death.
“They” will gladly die trying to kill us all. If we give up over there, they will soon be here.
What I really wanted to say before I began rambling….thank you and (I hope this is not our last) Merry Christmas.
Dennis Carmichael
Ojai, CA
From ML:
Thanks, good to see you haven’t lost your energy out there in Ojai. We’ll get there, but this phase–”phony war” comes to mind–is truly maddening. Meanwhile, our kids are learning how to fight. Bigtime.
Dec 26, 2006 - 11:33 am Barry 0351:The folks that are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan are our true Heroes.
The ones sending them there and running the show both Democrats and Republicans are just a bunch of “CLOWNS”!
ML:
Don’t forget our guys who live to fight another day. Heroes one and all in my book.
Dec 26, 2006 - 12:04 pm Dan:I think what people mean when they say that this is another “phony war” period is that the MAIN engagement, the main crunch, the main clinch has yet to occur. And won’t occur until such time as we engage Tehran. That’s how Churchill described the phony war period prior to the invasion of the low countries, even though Anglo-French troops were in action in Norway.
When I use the term “phony war” it’s not meant in any way to disparage our Marines in Al Anbar, or our troops on their daily patrols throughout Iraq.
I’m simply trying to describe this policy of dither and passivity regarding Tehran, and I’m trying to do so in a way that evokes historical antecedents.
The MAIN enemy is Tehran, always has been.
In the Winter/Spring of 1939/40, the MAIN encounter of hostile forces had yet to occur. It should be remembered that the phrase “phony war” was an American descriptive. And it reflected the scorn of ordinary Americans for the passive wartime approach that the Allied powers adopted.
I think the term “phony war” is highly accurate. During World War II it was used to describe a residual wishful thinking on the part of the Anglo/Franco establishment. So today, for our establishment shares a similar wishful thinking regarding our main enemy, Tehran. When Panzer forces crashed through the Polish frontier, all should have understood it was “game on!” But the establishment still hoped for a way out, a negotiated settlement, another Munich. Likewise today, our establishment longs for a way out of this looming confrontation with Tehran. And they’ll do just about anything to dodge it.
G.W. Bush didn’t really want to be a wartime President. He really wanted to wander around the country giving little, feel good speeches about the head-start program.
He aspired to a little, time-serving, unworthy Presidency.
History had other plans for him however.
And he will either live up to the challenge of this time, be mindful of his office, be mindful of his Command, be mindful of his country, of what we’ve been and meant, or he shall be recalled as an object of pity and derision, as America’s version of Neville Chamberlain.
Go back and look at Chamberlain’s face when he stood at the airfield after his return from Munich. He stood there waving his piece of paper, his worthless promise from Hitler that dialogue would be the sole instrument for resolving differences between Great Britain and Germany. Look at his face. Did Chamberlain appear an evil man. Did he appear like one who would lead his country to the gallows. Of course not. Chamberlain NEVER thought that he would be remembered as Chamberlain. He thought that he was prudent, strong, wise and possessed of singular vision. He was sure that his path would carry a favourable judgement from the future. He never for one moment thought of himself as a mewling weakling.
G.W. too deems his policies wise and prudent. History’s judgement won’t be so kind however.
I’m beginning to think that all of this won’t end well. And that history will damn George Walker Bush for failing to fully avail himself of the determination of the American people to close with and annihlate her enemies, that history will damn him for wasting the spirit of the nation after 9/11. He could have had an Army of millions, ready, willing and eager to take war to Tehran, Damascus, Riyadh, anywhere. The nation was galvinized for war. The nation wanted to put an end once and for all to this recurring muslim menace.
And we could have done it.
But he let it slip away, with all of his idiotic talk of “a different kind of war….”
Here is a good rule of thumb. Everytime you hear the President say the war is going to “take decades,” add a decade. Every time you hear the President say that it’s “going to take time,” know that it will only take that much more time.
He’s listening to the establishment. It’s an absolute disaster.
ML:
I use “phony war” as you do. Historians have to stick together :=)
And thanks for this excellent comment. Well structured, well written, a positive pleasure.
Dec 26, 2006 - 10:04 pm