Sic Semper Tyrannis 2008

Gone again

Doing the lord's work.  Hopefully will be back the 6th and will post from the road as possible.  pl

Quds force mediated Iraqi Fighting.

"....The backdrop to Sadr's dramatic statement was a secret trip Friday to Qom, Iran's holy city and headquarters of the dominant Iranian clergy, by Iraqi lawmakers.

There they held talks with Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods (Jerusalem) brigades of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and signed an agreement with Sadr, which formed the basis of his statement Sunday, members of parliament said.

In addition to Sadr, who is in Qom pursuing religious studies, Iraqi lawmakers met Suleimani, said Osama al Nejafi, a legislator on the parliamentary committee formed to solve the Basra crisis.

The Qom discussions may or may not bring an end to the fighting but they almost certainly have undermined Maliki - who made repeated declarations that there would be no negotiations and that he would treat as outlaws those who did not turn in their weapons for cash.

In another blow to Maliki, his security advisor, Saleem Qassim al Taee, known as Abu Laith Al-Kadhimi, was killed in the fighting in Basra...."  McClatchy Newpapers quoted on "The Friday Lunch Club."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it is true that the commander of the IRGC Quds Force mediated the intra-Shia fracas, then the US policy in Iraq of favoring the ISCI/Dawa/Badr dominated Maliki government is in serious trouble.

The role of "Wasit" (intermediary) is highly significant in the Middle East.  For the Iraqis to assign that role to the Iranians would indicate an acknowledgement of what they think the situation is going to be in the future.

A Reminder:  The Quds Force is the IRGC element that the US Senate branded a terrorist organization some time back  pl

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/32055.html

Serving Patriot on Maliki's Motives

"COL,

You noted to arbogast: "Maliki may have started this on his own trying to strengthen his own hand for the Autumn elections." Methinks there is a lot to this line of thought. Maliki, along with all the other Iraqi "patriots" in the Green Zone, must read the tea leaves as well as we do back home. Irrespective of November's winner, the US cannot sustain its current level of commitment in "Mess"-opatamia. Its army is breaking down and wheels will really begin to fly off by the end of 2008. So, there is no time like the present (and maximum strength) to drag your partner's army into an effort to knock off your chief rival and *his* army. No doubt we were and remain surprised by the obvious -- Maliki acting in his own self-interest -- but, we are yet again surprised by Iraqi actions, and probably not for the last time... Maliki knows he'll be left to the mobs in the near future. While holding off the Sunni and Kurds may be possible with the support of his co-religionists, he cannot do so while simultaneously fighting Sadrists (nationalists) for control of the key prizes (Baghdad, Basra and southern oil). As much as we vastly underestimate White House stupidity and arrogance, I think we also vastly underestimate Sadr's game, his power among the dispossessed Shi'i, and his appeal to Arab Shi'ism (vice Persian). I'm sure the Iranians support both sides of the Shi'i split in Iraq - mainly to keep their most feared foe divided and non-threatening. But, when push comes to shove, I think they will cut off Sadr's support in favor of their buddies in the SCIRI/Badr/Dawa groups. (Then again, in a country like Iraq were hundreds of thousands of small arms, light weapons and explosives are "missing," how decisive will the lack of direct Iranian support be?) Its an intriguing four way game: 1- Sadr wants all foreign occupiers out and Iraq for (Shi'i) Iraqis, 2- Iran wants quiet and influence on its western border, strategic depth from the hated Sunni and Jewish enemies and a bridge to their long lost cousins in Southern Lebanon (tweaking America along the way is like whipped cream on the sundae), 3- US desperate to extricate itself from their Iraqi tar-baby while simultaneously weakening the ascendant Persians (whose rise is fueled by continued its own ground presence and blinkered search for “victory” in the hunt for global jihadists!), and 4-Maliki, whose neck is stretched if/when he's left to his own devices by this American (overlord) protectors. No wonder the British want out so bad. It’s a race for the last lifeboat and those left on deck face some mighty cold waters...

Serving Patriot"

More on Basra, South Iraq and Iran

"..the damage has not only been to Britain's military reputation. It has also led to the most profound split between Britain and America since relations froze during the Suez crisis 50 years ago.

Shamefully for Britain, the White House is now considering sending its own forces to sort the mess that the British have left behind. Last week, one White House official acidly remarked: "American blood is going to have to buy off the British failure in Basra."

Already at the Basra air base, I can reveal, the British subsidiary of U.S. construction giant KBR is building four huge dining facilities - known to the American army as DFACs. These are capable of feeding 4,000 men and suggest that the U.S. Army is contemplating a massive deployment to southern Iraq - including a major presence inside Basra itself. "  Daily Mail

------------------------------------------------------------------

In the context of British withdrawal from south Iraq, I wrote a while back that the US would inevitably have to fill the vacuum so created with its own forces.  That time is fast approaching.  KBR is not building these facilities for the Iraqis.  It sounds like a reinforced brigade combat team will go in there plus USAF on the base.

In the interest of not making things worse with our cousins across the sea, I will restrict my comment on the Daily Mail article to making a request, on behalf of the uniformed services people, that we not encounter further condescension from the British on the subject of the superiority of their knowledge, sophistication, methods, etc. with regard to COIN.  Enough.

I do not believe that Iran wants to go to war with the United States either in the maritime regions of the gulf and Arabian Sea or in Iraq itself.  Whatever initial "benefits" Iran might experience would be far outweighed by the eventual devastation wrought on Iranian infrastructure by American air and sea power.  They know that.

It has been argued in these pages that the flow of crude and LPG could be obstructed as a major economic "weapons system."  That is merely true.  In fact, an obstruction of the flow of oil out of the Gulf would require Iranian action to create the obstruction.  The United States and especially this administration would be eager to see that as a casus belli.  The Iranians surely know that as well.  I have watched the US Navy at work in situations like this before.  Any obstruction would not last long.  The price per barrel?  There would be a sizable "spike" before the obstruction were cleared but it would be limited in duration and the resulting retaliatory action against Iran would be catastrophic for them.

A major non-SOF American ground effort against Iran?  This is an absurd idea for all the reasons given here before.  I will leave it for you all to thrash that out.

Many of the readers here are greatly underestimating the potential of a guerrilla campaign against the Kuwait-Baghdad supply line.  Yes, the roads can be held open, but at what cost in diverted assets?  pl

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=548593&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=382

Pale Rider on Iraq/Iran and the MSR

I have been writing about the vulnerability of this supply line for several years.  You could deliver the goods through Aqaba in Jordan, but this would require the construction of the terminal and marshaling facilities necessary to a modern LOC/MSR operation.  Air delivery?  Not enough tonnage would be possible except for support of tactical operations.

200,000 troops in an invasion of Iran from Iraq?

1-  We don't have the disposable force, and neither do any of our likely "allies."

2-  The Maliki government and its friends are well disposed towards Iran.  Sadr is less so, but only "less so."

3-  Take a look at the size of the forces that engaged on the Iraq side in their war against Iran.  They were huge.  I had the opportunity to watch a lot of the combat in that war and it was ferocious.

Stupid comments about how poorly the Iraqis fought in that war will not be posted.  I know better.

Other than that, "Pale Rider " sounds like a professional to me.  pl

------------------------------------------------------------

"Some people say that the Supply Lines up from Kuwait are the Americans' Achilles heel in any possible war with Iran. To what extent could this operation in Basra be seen as an American attempt to secure their supply lines in view of a forthcoming attack on Iran? If I could, I'd like to weigh in on that. The supply lines that run from Camp Doha in Kuwait into Iraq are pretty tenuous, as all supply lines are. We would have to detail some significant forces to keep them open if the elements in Basra that are opposing us decided to try to shut them down. You'd need helicopter flights to escort them through, in most cases. We already rely on airlifting supplies--that could be further strained as well. If they shut down the truck transports or limited them, we'd have to boost the airlift. If we boost the airlift, they would react with shoulder fired SAMs where they could. US troops are so dispersed in Iraq that it really makes any linkage to an attack on Iran non-existent, at least to me. They're fighting as brigades that are broken down into battalions and companies that are spread thin, sometimes down to the platoon level or smaller, not divisions. The majority of their gear is fitted for COIN not ground assault. Much of it is worn out. It does OK for limited COIN right now, but three to six weeks of ground combat against even moderate Iranian Army elements? A ground assault into Iran would have to be organized around the division and corps formations that aren't really in place in Iraq. There's a structure in place to occupy Iraq but there isn't one that can just break off and become MNF-Iran. Forget about the troops in Afghanistan--you could yank every one of them out and put them in Iraq and it wouldn't make much of a dent in what you would need. They would have to bring in thousands of staff just to form up that headquarters. For the US Army to form up and send more than a few thousand men into battle, we would need a unit like the 3rd ACR out front and two to five divisions moving in behind it--as in 1st CAV and 4th ID in the III Corps. Even that would be a small force for invading Iran. A more realistically-sized invasion force (as close to 200,000 troops as possible is my guess) would have to be comprised of at least 8 of the 10 active divisions, two air cav brigades, 2-5 National Guard divisions, and at least 25,000 Marin es. You might get to 200K with that, but I wouldn't bet on it. We'd need all the other elements as well--overhead and logistical. ALL of that is severely over-tasked and tied down in Iraq. The process of pulling each Army brigade (or getting the Marine units into an attack mode) would mean pulling everyone and their gear out of the garrison or post they'e in now; supplying them for an attack, and then moving them hundreds of miles with HETs and everything else into jump-off points near Iran. There would be no element of surprise and the formed-up vanguard of an American attack into Iran would sit for days, waiting to get itself in place, and would be vulnerable to the elements as well. The reason we jumped in March five years ago was to avoid the oncoming hot season. Petraeus would literally have to start this week in order to get even 50-60,000 troops in place to attack Iran.  Pale Rider"

"Iraqi Forces vs. The Extremists"

When Joe Lieberman corrected McCain's "senior moment" in Jordan, he had McCain say that the Iranians were training "extremists," not "alkaydah" (sic).  The two of them and Graham had just come from Iraq, so I guess Joe had gotten the word there that the baddies (Jeish al-mahdi) were going to be referred to as "extremists."   McCain just couldn't keep it straight.  Hmmm.  The enemy is who?  Say it again...

It is clear that US policy is to back Maliki/Dawa/ISCI/Badr Corps (Iraqi Forces) against Moqtada al-Sadr and his "army" of "shirtless ones."  Fine.  Why not?  I guess the US has no choice but to back someone.

I suppose that the powers that be will shift the Main Supply Route (MSR) to the west (Nasiriyah) if the Basra area becomes too obstructed.

My problem with the present course of events is the ruthlessness of the propaganda campaign being successfully waged by the Bush Administration.   The president has succeeded in "framing" the discussion in such a way that Maliki and his assembly of Badr Corps militias are represented as being the equivalent of George Washington suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion.  The noble Maliki is portrayed as motivated by a selfless desire for "national" unity.  The MSM has re-transmitted that idea without serious question.

In fact he is merely acting on behalf of an emerging alignment of pro-Iranian forces in Iraq that have successfully pulled the wool over American eyes.

You may have noticed that no Kurdish units of the "Iraqi Forces" have been brought down from the north for this "fandango."  You may also have noticed that our Concerned Local Citizens/Sons of Iraq (read Sunni tribal Arab auxiliaries) are not involved.  Show me some engaged units in this that are not Shia.

They don't seem to fight so well, these "Iraqi Forces " at Basra.  We have spent a lot of time and money on these people.  They are not making much progress at Basra.  I used to know Montagnard Special Commando Unit troops who fought better than this, but, then, they were well led by some wonderful Special Forces sergeants and junior officers.

That brings up the inevitability of heavy US involvement in this suppression of the "Whiskey Rebellion."  It's just a matter of time.

McCain must fear that terribly.  pl

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1726132,00.html

"Medellin vs. Texas" Bush lost big time.

"The majority also flatly rejected the Bush Administration's claim that it could make the ICJ decision binding by presidential memorandum. "The president," the majority wrote, "has an array of political and diplomatic means available to enforce international obligations, but unilaterally converting a non-self-executing treaty into a self-executing one is not among them." In short, congressional action was an absolute prerequisite to making the ICJ decision binding. And again, there had been no congressional action taken here. "  Findlaw

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The chief justice wrote with regard to this case that "The president's duty is to execute the law, not to make it."

Now, it may be that the specific outcome of this Supreme Court ruling is of interest only to this fellow, Medellin, but the larger point is important.

The Left in this country has been endless in its anticipation of slavish obedience to the president by the "Roberts Court."  It did not happen here.  Bush, who's behavior as governor of Texas demonstrated that he is not opposed to capital punishment, wanted Texas to comply with this ICJ decision.

Why?

Simple.  He wants the US to be the "centerpiece" in a worldwide compassionately conservative imperium.  For that to work the US must accept its part in the design.  Awkwardly, the American federal system still exists and Texas chose to exercise its sovereignty to reject this decision by the ICJ and the executive branch of the US government.

Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas and Stephens all sided with Texas's rights as a sovereign in this case.

What happened to the slavish obedience that was expected?  pl

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20080327.html

Why McCain is the Wrong Man

""The United States cannot lead by virtue of its power alone," McCain said, noting that the United States did not single-handedly win the Cold War or other conflicts in its history. Instead, he said, the country must lead by attracting others to its cause, demonstrating the virtues of freedom and democracy, defending the rules of an international civilized society and creating new international institutions.

He renewed his call for creating a new global compact of more than 100 democratic countries to advance shared values and defend shared interests, and said the United States must set an example for other democracies.

"If we lead by shouldering our international responsibilities and pointing the way to a better and safer future for humanity ... it will strengthen us to confront the transcendent challenge of our time: the threat of radical Islamic terrorism," said the four-term senator and member of the Armed Services Committee.

"Any president who does not regard this threat as transcending all others does not deserve to sit in the White House, for he or she does not take seriously enough the first and most basic duty a president has — to protect the lives of the American people," McCain added, suggesting that neither of his Democratic rivals, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama, understand the stakes at hand."  Yahoo News

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

"tran·scend·ent     /trænˈsɛndənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tran-sen-duhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective

1.	going beyond ordinary limits; surpassing; exceeding.

2.	superior or supreme.

3.	Theology. (of the Deity) transcending the universe, time, etc. Compare immanent (def. 3).

4.	Philosophy. a. Scholasticism. above all possible modes of the infinite. b. Kantianism. transcending experience; not realizable in human experience. Compare transcendental (defs. 5a, c). c. (in modern realism) referred to, but beyond, direct apprehension; outside consciousness.

–noun Mathematics.

5.	a transcendental function.

---

[Origin: 1575–85; < L trānscendent- (s. of trānscendéns), prp. of trānscendere. See transcend, -ent]

—Related forms

tran·scend·ent·ly, adverb

tran·scend·ent·ness, noun

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006."

***********************************************************************************

So, this transcendent threat is greater than anything else around?  It is greater than the shakiness of the economy, the threat of pestilence, the competition provided by an emerging China, all of that?

I don't think so.  The Sunni takfiri networks command the allegiance of a few thousand at most.  The worst they could POSSIBLY do to all those they hate and despise would involve some attack that might be bloody in nature but certainly not mortal to any of the societies of the West.  Transcendent?  If you want transcendence in a threat, you must find something more than a few radicals who through a clever ruse stole a few airplanes and crashed them into buildings.  And we accept such rubbish?

Our ancestors who fought at Gettysburg or on any number of other flaming fields would scoff.

What is the matter with him?  He should know better than to think this or talk like this.

We should form "a new international group of countries" to "confront" this threat?  I guess they did not teach Thucydides at the Naval Academy when he was there.  The Delian League was the Athenian Empire in all but name.  What sort of "league" would we call this?  pl

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080326/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_foreign_affairs

Who are the "Iraqi Security Forces?"

"The Sadrists are angry over recent raids and detentions, saying U.S. and Iraqi forces have taken advantage of the cease-fire to crack down on the movement.

They also have accused rival Shiite parties, which control Iraqi security forces, of engineering the arrests to prevent them from mounting an effective election campaign. The showdown with al-Sadr has been brewing for months but has accelerated since parliament agreed in February to hold provincial elections by the fall.

On Wednesday in Basra, gunfire echoed through the streets as Iraqi soldiers and police fought the Mahdi Army, police said.

Reinforcements were sent to Basra from the Shiite holy city of Karbala, Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said, adding a large number of gunmen have been detained."  Yahoo News

---------------------------------------------------------------------

So, there is fighting in Basra among the Shia?  What a surprise!  A showdown there between forces of the Mahdi Army and the rest has been "in the cards" for some time.  The MSM talks as though the "Iraqi Security Forces" are something other than representatives of millitia anti Sadrist forces among the Shia.  That is not the case.  The security forces really represent the power of some of the Shia parties/militias being used in this case against the Sadrists.  There is an ongoing struggle among the major Shia factions in Iraq.  One of these is the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr.  Others include the Dawa allies of Prime Ministers Maliki,  the al-Hakim faction (SIIC), the Badr Force (generally allied with Hakim) and Fadila in the Basra area.

Need a score card?  Well...  the "security forces" are full of Badr Force militia men.  These people belong to an organization that was raised originally by Iran to fight against IRAQ.  They have been recruited into the "security forces" in large numbers.  They intend to break the Mahdi Army if they can and the US seems to approve of that idea.

Reinforcements have been sent from Karbala to Basra.  Karbala is virtually ruled by the Badr Force. 

The US has been treasuring the idea that the apparatus of the Iraqi state is other than a congeries of militia factions and parties.

Once again the untruth of that is exposed.

Who is firing into the Green Zone.  I doubt if anyone really knows.  pl

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080326/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

UCMJ extends to civilian contractors - Gates

"Jim" sent me this little gem.  The MSM misses most important things and this is one of them.  Under this Department of Defense  directive, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates takes action to assure the extension of the authority of US military law over all civilians serving with or for US military forces.

The direcives provides authority for officers and NCOs to arrest and detain persons seen conducting a crime and for military authorities to pursue investigations that may lead to trial by general court martial.

The directive requires DoD to inform the US Department of Justice (DoJ) that it is proceeding against particular civilians.  This provision exists to allow DoJ to take charge of the case involving civilians if it wishes.  If DoJ declines then the military is authorized to proceed under its own legal system.

This would appear to settle the issue of how to deal with private armies of the "Blackwater" type in criminal matters.  Comment from you lawyers?  pl

Download gates-ucmj.pdf