The U.S. government has consistently blamed the proliferation in Iraq of Explosively Formed Penetrator "super-bombs" -- powerful enough to kill heavy tanks -- on Iranian Qods force paramilitaries. All those machine-made EFPs, they say, are evidence that Tehran is directly intervening in Iraq. (EFP pictured below striking a U.S. Humvee.)
Just last week, the 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division uncovered a cache (pictured top) north of Baghdad containing 350 EFPs, including 130 that were "ready to be emplaced," according to Major General Mark Hertling, commander of Multi-National Division North and the 1st Armored Division. On Monday during a conference call with bloggers, Hertling said he had a pretty good idea where the bombs came from, but wouldn't discuss it with the press. "Certainly there have been indicators in the past that there have been passages of EFPs from across the border."
But Iran alarmists overlook two key points:
1) Iraq has the ability to manufacture EFPs, thanks to Hezbollah:
In August 2005,Newsday published a report from correspondent Mohammed Bazzi that Shi'ite fighters had begun in early 2005 to copy Hezbollah techniques for building the bombs, as well as for carrying out roadside ambushes, citing both Iraqi and Lebanese officials. In late November 2006, a senior intelligence official told both CNN and The New York Times that Hezbollah troops had trained as many as 2,000 [Iraqi] Mahdi army fighters in Lebanon. (Gareth Porter, Inter Press Service)
2) The Qods force is possibly not acting on Tehran's orders if and when it meddles in Iraq: “I see key indications that they [the Mahdi army] are being supported by Iranians, particularly Qods force guys," Army Colonel Jon S. Lehr from the 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, told me a couple weeks ago, adding that the presence of EFPs in Shi'ite hands is evidence of that. But wait! "I’m not linking the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Council [Qods force] to the Iranian government,” Lehr added.
There are new rumors that the U.S. is gearing up to bomb Iran. Ending Iran's nuke program is, of course, the major motive. But inasmuch as the bombing represents punishment for Tehran's alleged interference in Iraq, it's unjustified.
Related:
Iranian fishermen, beware!
Inside the Persian Gulf arms race
EFPs threaten Army modernization
(Thanks, Nick! Photos: Answers.com, U.S. Army)
After the failure of US intelligence to accurately ascertain sadam's weapons program, the standard for action must be higher- otherwise, it will simply be politically motivated, and further isolating the US on the world stage.
One should be asking a very basic question: how many UAV's would that take? Using simple math, you will draw the logical conclusion that there are too many needs going on at one time, as it would take many, many hundreds (if not thousands) of UAV's to cover each of those needs in all the locations we have use for them, let alone across the globe. Further, imagine the difficulty and complexity an air traffic controller would have, with that many vehicles in the sky, manned and unmanned, at any one time flying over just 2 countries, no matter the size of the land mass- just how many Air Traffic Controllers would that take? How about the number of Pilots? Each UAV has to have one to fly; they may be unmanned, but not self-guided.
Approximately 0.1% of our population has volunteered for service, and that was before 9/11- if one does the math, you have an idea how many people that is, and then you need to consider how many of that number serve as Pilots and Air Traffic Controllers. Sorry, but if I have to choose between watching the Iran-Iraq border, and watching out for our war-fighters over there, and the roads they drive on, with both satellites and UAV's, which do you think I will choose?
Further, one should consider this: building an air-tight case against such a foe takes patience- give away what you can prove too quickly, and you lose your advantage. If you think about it, we have never given out the greater extent of our intelligence until we are ready to take action, or already taking action.
Your standards of proof are good ones, and it is clear you wish us to be ethical in our choices, and I agree with your principles. However, neither of us fully knows what we do and do not have in the way of proof, nor what it takes to gather it, nor how many of those assets we have available at any one time, nor how many lives we would have to place at further risk to do as you suggest. I mean no offense, your viewpoint is a valid one, but the conclusion you draw is faulty for many, many reasons.
I haven't even begun to address the issue of getting a confession out of a fanatic who believes dying for his cause will be a blessing. Or, that others who we might capture who are not as fanatical are likely more frightened of their leaders in Iran than of us, since we make it very public that we make some attempt to prevent/limit torture, while it is well know Iran does not. We have a lot we make ourselves accountable for, and I believe that is part of what makes us a great country, but such requests, without consideration of the ramafications, nor of our efforts to protect our countrymen, is not effective nor is it beneficial, and causes the same problems politicians have been handing our military for several years when they make conflicting demands without concern or regard to such considerations. Such micro-management behavior has never worked, and it never will.
There is plenty of mistakes going around right now, and clearly nothing is certain about Iran yet, but please stop adding to the problems by encouraging such poorly considered demands by the press and the politicians.