Hulver's site || Inside Iran

Diaries
Everything
Who's Online?
FAQ / Help

Inside Iran

By Vertical Frankenstein (Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 09:36:44 AM EST) (all tags)

From The New Yorker:

The President has signed a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia.

The Presidentâ€™s decision enables Rumsfeld to run the operations off the booksâ€”free from legal restrictions imposed on the C.I.A.

In my interviews, I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran.

I sure hope this Hersh guy is a crackpot, sensationalistic reporter. If not, then the next logical question is "WTF!!111"

Iran has agreed to temporarily halt its enrichment programs, which generate fuel for nuclear power plants but also could produce weapons-grade fissile material.

Timeout for a second. That's bullshit we've been kicking around since the Carter administration.

I guess they have four years to kick ass and win the war on terror. Or, maybe, they'll need another eight years after that to really do the job. Meh, I'm getting more coffee.

< Hi, My Name Is Duxup | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >

Login

Poll

Votes: 2
Results	\|	Other Polls

Related Links

- From The New Yorker
- bullshit we've been kicking around
- Vertical Frankenstein's Diary

Google

Comment Controls

Inside Iran | 49 comments (49 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

Hersh by theboz (4.00 / 4) #1 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 09:47:05 AM EST

Yeah, he was full of shit when he came up with that crazy story about torture and abuse photos existing from Abu Ghraib. I mean, who would believe such a silly thing?

All sarcasm aside, it's no secret that our government doesn't like Iran. It's highly probable that we do have people there, but this may not be a new thing.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n

Iran by duxup (4.00 / 1) #2 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 10:08:38 AM EST

Iran would be a risky nation to send people into. I maintain that while Iran is dangerous it still represents one of the best hopes for a democratic nation in that area. With a very young, idealistic, educated, and secular population very good things could come from Iran provided the current regime could be removed.

____

Risky? by ti dave (2.00 / 0) #6 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 11:37:59 AM EST

How's that? The article refers to covert operations, not a "D-Day" style invasion.

I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Think of the children by duxup (4.00 / 1) #7 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 11:43:26 AM EST

Risky in alienating what could be a relatively friendly populous of Iran. Not those running the government but the younger generation.
____
[ Parent ]

Welcome back, duxup. by ti dave (4.00 / 1) #8 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 12:10:36 PM EST

I'm afraid you do not understand the word covert.

I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Because covert by cam (2.00 / 0) #9 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 12:16:25 PM EST

.... sometimes leads to overt things such as a Pinochet.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Sometimes... by ti dave (2.00 / 0) #10 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 12:19:48 PM EST

but not necessarily all of the time.

I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

It's my impression by hulver (4.00 / 1) #11 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 12:24:47 PM EST

The subtlety is not a big part of the American psyche.
--
smart, pretty, sane. pick two - georgeha
[ Parent ]

That's simply our *public* face. by ti dave (2.00 / 0) #13 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 12:30:30 PM EST

We have some folks who can take care of the job.

I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

: Oh those special forces... by jump the ladder (2.00 / 0) #20 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 01:06:55 PM EST

Yeah these are the unknown unknowns that otherwise Iraq wouldn't be success story that it is today.

[ Parent ]

Bush time by cam (2.00 / 0) #14 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 12:31:48 PM EST

Maybe, maybe not, though the Ayatollah Khomeini was another overt covertness. I havent seen Bush do anything right, other than win two elections. His foreign policy has been a mess and I seriously dont trust him with the military.

I think this is bad, and whatever conclusion the covert ops are supposed to take, I dont believe it will be a positive for the Iranians who want a representative democracy without a theocracy in the executive and constitutionally aware of individuals political freedoms.

Basically, I think Bush and Rumsfield will fuck it up. Worse they will face no accountability for the ineptness, incompetence or secrecy.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Really? by ti dave (2.00 / 0) #19 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 12:46:51 PM EST

I havent seen Bush do anything right, other than win two elections.

How many terrorist attacks have been executed upon American soil since 9/11?

I praise the Executive for defending my Nation from those who would wish to harm us.

I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

terrorist attacks by dr k (2.00 / 0) #21 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 01:18:37 PM EST

Here is my standard reply to your silly comment: America is still responding to the 9/11 attack, why on earth would terrorists feel the need to organize another attack?

:| :| :| :| :|
[ Parent ]

There is that ... by lm (2.00 / 0) #24 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 01:30:09 PM EST

But let's consider the two largest contemporary terrorist attacks on US soil: 9/11 and the anthrax mailings of 10/01. The mastermind of the first is still at large. The government is unable to figure out who is guilty of the second. Given this state of affairs, how can you bring yourself to question the competency of the GWB administration in defending USian soil?

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

eh? by dr k (2.00 / 0) #26 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 01:43:36 PM EST

Were you replying to something else? I didn't address the competency (or lack thereof) of this admin. But in case you are interested, I think they've jpegged just about everything, and I think Bush is a dangerous sociopath who should be removed from power as soon as possible.

:| :| :| :| :|
[ Parent ]

properly understood, I was agreeing with you by lm (2.00 / 0) #27 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 02:23:12 PM EST

I had thought that your `length of response' comment was directed at the competency of the current US commander in chief, whose virtues were being praised by the comment you responded to you. I had thought that the sarcastic tone of my previous comment was fairly obvious.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

ah good by dr k (4.00 / 1) #28 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 04:13:54 PM EST

And I can see where you might interpret my comment that way. For those following along at home, I mean no praise when I say we are still responding to 9/11. Each morning these people wake up and say, "My god, we've been attacked!" They have yet to rationally address the situation, and ti dave's remark about the lack of further attacks is simply a bizarre rationalization of the administration's prolonged irrationality.

:| :| :| :| :|
[ Parent ]

Bizarre? by ti dave (2.00 / 0) #32 Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 02:15:33 AM EST

How's that?

I'm wondering how you attribute the lack of attacks... lazy terrorists?

I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

what is the main purpose of terrorism? by Dr H0ffm4n (2.00 / 0) #34 Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:18:15 AM EST

My understanding is that it is to provoke backlash against innocents that is so unpopular to actually recruit the afformentioned innocents to the cause of the terrorists. Viewed in that light 9/11 was a success and is still working.

I could be wrong. It has happened before.

[ Parent ]

Not sure I'm tracking you... by ti dave (2.00 / 0) #38 Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:34:20 AM EST

Close, I believe.
Probably more along the lines of "sway popular^* support towards the terrorists' cause/agenda".

In that case, I don't see 9/11 motivating too many Americans to join up with Al Qaeda.

_{* in the terrorists' area of operations, not necessarily the terrorists' home base.}

I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Al Qaeda in Amerkia by Dr H0ffm4n (2.00 / 0) #41 Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:37:53 AM EST

They ain't exactly gonna advertise themselves are they?

Anyway, it's the softy Islamic states back in the gulf that matters. Islamicism did not result in revolution and imposition of lasting anti-USian fundamental Islamic theocracies. Maybe the terrorists hoped that USia would retaliate with such brutality against such targets as Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan to cause the uniting of the Islamic world in jihad against the decadent west?

I love a good conspiracy theory, me.

[ Parent ]

: Well, look at Saudi Arabia. by ti dave (2.00 / 0) #46 Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 12:50:50 PM EST

It's dealing with some of the worst violence it's seen in the past 50 years.
I don't believe the Islamo-fascists are finished in the kingdom.
Oddly enough, the positively sinful Gulf States have been relatively violence-free. I wonder why that is?
I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

I wouldn't even try by dr k (2.00 / 0) #47 Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 01:58:45 PM EST

to attribute the lack of attacks to one primary cause. That is a foolish (and sloppy) position to take. And if I were for some reason to give credit to Prez Bush and his cronies for the recent lack of terrorist incidents, I certainly wouldn't attribute their success to the common public perception of what the administration is doing to "fight terror" -- the terror alert system and the involuntary groping at airports are hardly preventing terror, they merely serve to placate the public. So, if I were to give credit to this administration, I find I am in the same place I was when the same administration claimed there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, namely that I have no first hand evidence of this fact, and no second hand evidence has been presented to me. Unless you've got some inside connection, some angle on the situation that is exclusive to you and yours, well then your own beliefs in the effectiveness of this administration to protect the US et al from terror is based on no real information.

More directly to your question, there is no classical relationship between an event occurring (a terrorist attack) and the negation of a negative event (the counter-terrorism effort failed to prevent the attack). As such, I can't really judge the lack of an event as any kind of success, the failure of something to occur is not a sign that something positive was done to prevent it. Sorry.

:| :| :| :| :|
[ Parent ]

: minor correction: by dr k (2.00 / 0) #48 Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 02:01:32 PM EST

There is no classical equivalence between an event occurring (a terrorist attack) and the negation of a negative event. It not the case that event A == not (not event A).

:| :| :| :| :|
[ Parent ]

Are you a sports fan? by ti dave (2.00 / 0) #31 Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 02:13:16 AM EST

Hey, after your favourite team scores their first goal, do you think it's prudent of them to simply quit and walk off the field?

I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

nice analogy! by dr k (4.00 / 2) #43 Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 11:07:17 AM EST

So, you're saying the terrorists are, uh, one of the teams, and 9/11 was a field goal? Okay, well, maybe we don't have 15 minute quarters in this game, the game is much longer, going on for decades, or pretty much endlessly, and the US is the stadium, and, uh, commercial planes are shoulder pads, and Bush is the team owner, and Fox News is the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders, and Saddam Hussein was the terrorist team's mascot only he got ejected from the game, and the American flag you used to fly from your car window was a big foam finger, and you would give the game to the US simply because they have the most yards rushing.

:| :| :| :| :|
[ Parent ]

: Good effort! by ti dave (2.00 / 0) #44 Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 12:37:22 PM EST

Block that kick!
I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Were you praising him prior to Sept 11th? by cam (2.00 / 0) #22 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 01:19:57 PM EST

Cos he let a real biggie slip through on Sept 11th! The fight them over there thing is bullshit. The US was always fighting them over there, the barracks in Lebanon and the USS Cole being two immediate examples that spring up.

Iraq is a mess. It is destroying the US Army and National Guard. There is no guarantee that Iraq will settle down to a rule of law democracy at this stage.

The whole premise for Iraq has eroded support for the US Government, it was basically contempt. A marketing campaign and a fabricated crisis. Much like the SS crisis that is being fabricated at the moment.

What has he done to stop extremist Wahibism? Tell Saudi Arabia to democratize? No. Bush's doctrine only extends to military minnows.

That also doesnt include his inability to display fiscal discipline, his lack of respect for individual liberty in the US (Patriot Act and Guantanamo should not appear in a republic) or his increasing secrecy and lack of accountability from the executive.

Hence I dont trust him - and I think your "I thank our steadfast and vaunted leader" comment ingenuous. It flies in the face of the outcomes of Bush's decisions and policies.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Destroying the Army and National Guard? by ti dave (2.00 / 0) #30 Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 02:08:57 AM EST

Let's see...

Currently, we're at 1,367 dead, out of a combined Army force of well over one million troops.

A pretty insignificant percentage, wouldn't you think?

I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

You know that is not what I mean. by cam (2.00 / 0) #33 Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:08:11 AM EST

nt
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

I'm not going to put words in your mouth. by ti dave (2.00 / 0) #37 Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:28:50 AM EST

Tell me what you mean.

I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

All the stop-gap orders by cam (2.00 / 0) #42 Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:24:53 AM EST

the extra deployments, the extended deployments, telling them they can go home in January and then making it March.

It is putting pressure on recruiting already. The Navy and Air Force will be fine, so projection wont suffer, but the Army and National Guard will be fucked after another five years of this tempo. It will be like Vietnam where the US Army had to be rebuilt to the fighting instrument it was in 1999.

The Regulars will handle it better than the National Guard. But already I have read of it putting pressure on the experienced ranks such as Sergeants. Citizen Army's rock, nothing is a better indicator of Civil Administration fuck ups than a citizen army. If the National Guard is complaining then the White House is fucking up.

The conscript army in Vietnam had it right, though they displayed it be being druggies and killing their officers. Hopefully the National Guard wont do that, but dissention in the National Guard is a good indication that the White House and Pentagon are fucking up.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

: Dear Mr. Cam; by ti dave (2.00 / 0) #45 Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 12:47:08 PM EST

As a former soldier, I must advise you that it is indeed, a soldier's lot to complain.
Take those complaints with a very large grain of salt.
I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

True, there have been no attacks on US soil ... by lm (2.00 / 0) #23 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 01:26:47 PM EST

... (if we assume that the post 9/11 anthrax mailings were domestic in origin) but why should there be? The terrorists have gotten our commander in chief to move US troops to the middle east, saving car bombers the expense of crossing the Atlantic to carry out their attacks on US personnel.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Because covert by snugglebunny (2.00 / 0) #12 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 12:25:32 PM EST

... frequently leads to USians blowing things up.

Which of these is a discreet way of gaining someone's attention.
a) Coughing gently.
b) Tapping them on the shoulder.
c) Blowing their capital up and overturning their government.

Hint. it's not c.

[ Parent ]

: d) by ti dave (2.00 / 0) #15 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 12:31:59 PM EST

Set the conditions for the eventual over-turn of their government, without attribution.
I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Well then by duxup (2.00 / 0) #16 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 12:33:17 PM EST

I'm sure as long as they say it is cover it will stay that way.
____
[ Parent ]

You know... The best missions? by ti dave (2.00 / 0) #17 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 12:39:59 PM EST

You don't know about them. Nothing.

I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Be that as it may ... by lm (2.00 / 0) #25 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 01:36:55 PM EST

You don't know anything about my best covert ops, either. Without me, the free world would have long fell into the darkness of totalitarian state socialism.

See the problem here?

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Au contraire. by ti dave (4.00 / 1) #29 Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 01:54:08 AM EST

Considering how long it's taken you to settle your father's estate, my estimate of your covert ops capabilities leans toward "unlikely".

I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

That's exactly what he'd like you to think though by Dr H0ffm4n (4.00 / 1) #35 Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:20:56 AM EST

See the problem here?

[ Parent ]

Wait a minute ... by lm (2.00 / 0) #39 Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:49:39 AM EST

... surely you're not suggesting that there is a correlation between an organization's competency in its overt operations and an organization's competency in its covert operations?

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

: Well, it *was* covert. by ti dave (2.00 / 0) #40 Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:56:44 AM EST

To your in-laws, at least.
I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Well, by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #49 Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:15:28 PM EST

he claims he's been working on his father's estate. But it's a good way to get stuff done away from the family, isn't it.

[ Parent ]

Well, what did you expect? by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #3 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 10:53:21 AM EST

<troll>All during the lead up to Iraq, the left complained that the really dangerous countries were Iran and North Korea. Now that Bush is obviously getting ready to knock over another domino, y'all are complaining again.

What will you complain about when he finishes restoring democracy to North Korea?</troll>

<reality>My main problem with believing this is that the US military is already over extended. I can't imagine the pentagon wants to risk broadening the war right now.</reality>

Spellcheck, Preview, Post. Where's the "Think" button?

: We know how much the White House respects by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #4 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 11:13:15 AM EST

the Pentagon, so we have nothing to worry about.

[ Parent ]
: From the Article: by ti dave (2.00 / 0) #5 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 11:36:37 AM EST

These will be special operations troops.
They may be, by design, rapidly moved to new areas as needed.
I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do.
The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. --W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Erm OK by jump the ladder (2.00 / 0) #18 Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 12:42:12 PM EST

That's so fucking stupid that it's got to be a BushCo policy. Really fuck off the people next door who are keeping the lid on a potential majority shia uprising in Iraq whilst you can barely cope with the existing Sunni one.

: Is the caricature of BushCo as stupid so accurate? by Dr H0ffm4n (4.00 / 1) #36 Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:25:42 AM EST

Or do we just not believe the larger agenda could be possible and so fall into thinking they do not realise the likely immediate repercussions of their actions?
This is a long game strategy at work, so some actions viewed too closely may appear dumb.

[ Parent ]

Inside Iran | 49 comments (49 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback