Posted on 01/26/2007 5:51:39 AM PST by dnmore
The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort.
For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The "catch and release" policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran and yet intimidate its emissaries. U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go.
Last summer, however, senior administration officials decided that a more confrontational approach was necessary, as Iran's regional influence grew and U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran appeared to be failing. The country's nuclear work was advancing, U.S. allies were resisting robust sanctions against the Tehran government, and Iran was aggravating sectarian violence in Iraq.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
I sum it up as we had been fighting the war in Iraq the same way the Democrats want us to fight the war here. Follow a whole bunch of stupid, useless rules and hope for the best...
We should have had this policy in place from Day 1.
Pretty easy I would think. They would be the ones with AK47s in hand, TNT tied around their waists and screaming death to the USA, Al-la-la is all great and mighty!!
WASHINGTON - When President Bush in his State of the Union address Tuesday night called for a bipartisan "special advisory council" of congressional leaders on the war against terrorism, he had in his pocket a rude rejection from Democratic leaders. Thank you very much, said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, but no thank you.
Three days earlier, Reid and Pelosi wrote a letter to the president, turning down his offer (contained in his Jan. 10 speech on Iraq) to establish a council consisting of Democratic chairmen and Republican ranking members of the relevant committees. "We believe that Congress already has bipartisan structures in place," they said, adding: "We look forward to working with you within existing structures."
That could be the most overt snub of a presidential overture since Abraham Lincoln was told that Gen. George B. McClellan had retired for the night and could not see the president. Courtesy aside, it shows that the self- confident Democratic leadership is uninterested in being cut into potentially disastrous outcomes in Iraq. It wants to function as a coordinate branch of government, not as friendly colleagues in the spirit of bipartisanship. Pelosi and several Democratic chairmen are leaving for Iraq on Friday.
In his Jan. 10 speech on Iraq, Bush called for a "new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror." That prompted the Pelosi-Reid letter of Jan. 19, rejecting the offer.
I like the new policy, kill them.
This older policy was insanity 'U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time'.
Interesting angle...what would you say the differences would be?
Persians can plant an IED without it blowing up on them.
It seems to me that the Iranians are causing a lot of trouble on the cheap. Raise the ante.
Aside from the fact that Persians tend to look more European than Arabs, and speak a different language, and associate with pro-Iranian groups like the Mahdi Army instead of al-Qa'ida in Iraq, you mean?
The actually intelligence that rolls in on these guys either comes from Iraqis that know the difference, linguists that speak Farsi, and other sources identifying sources. The average Joe doesn't need to get the Arab/Persian problem right, just the intelligence guys spotting the targets.
Honestly, I don't have a clue! I can easily tell the difference between a castillian and a mayan here in Texas, but all I know is that persians and arabs both think they're superior goat-porkers to each other!
Catch and release!!!!! If this article is correct, why are Iranians being singled out for such special treatment? Aren't they considered foreign fighters like most of AQ in Iraq?
The term "catch and release" for terrorists actually originated with AQI. Once the facilitators caught on that we had to catch them with physical evidence, they'd avoid it like the plague. A low level VBIED mechanic caught with bombs in his garage would go to jail, while his boss would walk. All they have to do is both deny it. We've arrested some of the same leaders several times, and let them go due to lack of physical evidence. There's plenty of intelligence that shows them to be guilty, but nothing we'd allow in court.
Not detaining the Iranians, on the other hand, was a diplomatic courtesy, regardless of what physical evidence of terrorist ties they were caught with.
Roll that idea around in your head for a while.
Being familiar to Middle Eastern people I for example could easily spot the difference between an Arab and a Persian. As already said Persians look more Caucasian/European... like Italians or Greek.
Note that not all Iranians are Persians, who only are 45-50 % of Iran's population. 20% are Azeris, who are related to Turks. Many leading clerics are Azeris (including Khameini).
Then there are Iranian Kurds, Arabs, Turkomen, Armenians, Baluchis, Loors, etc. etc.
I would suspect that Iran's agents in Iraq are mostly Arab Iranians from the Southern Khuzestan Province, or Shia Arabs from Lebanon/Iraq trained for decades in Iran.
Seems, from a quick net search, like the Iranians are very similar to the Afghanis.
Thanks, SolidWood.
Only the male dims.
Nonsense. I have lived in Iran and Saudi Arabia. You would have a a very difficult time differenting among the two based on physical appearance [discounting their clothing].
It is also worth noting that almost half of the country's population is not Persian. Of these non-Persians, the Kurds alone account for some 9 percent of Iran's population, and their national sentiments have certainly been strengthened by the example of virtual Kurdish independence in Iraq next door. As their demands for cultural autonomy become more forceful, something of an insurgency seems to have started in Kurdish-inhabited parts of northwestern Iran. Smaller nationalities, too, have recently engaged in acts of violent resistance, including the Arabs at 3 percent of Iran’s population and the Baluch of the southeast at 2 percent.
Taken together, the Kurds, the Arabs, the Baluch, plus several other ethnicities (Turkmen, Lurs, Gilaki, and Mazandarani), whether in any way dissident or not, amount to a quarter of Iran’' population. But another quarter at least is added by the Turkish-speaking Azeris. Although many Azeris, especially in Tehran, are thoroughly assimilated, many others increasingly affirm their Turkic national identity, and groups calling for cultural autonomy or even separation have become increasingly active among them. Ever since Azerbaijan, just across the border, gained its independence from the Soviet Union, the Azeris have had a national home of their own, and it is not Iran.
U.S. troops authorized to kill Iranians in Iraq
I wasn't aware there was a difference in them and the Sirians, Turks, Sudanese, Yemens, Jordanians, etc;. etc;...
Your overall assesment is right, but I disagree with your first asessment on the physical appearance of (Saudi) Arabs and Persian Iranians. I was in Iran pre-Revolution and also in the Emirates, and know several exiled Iranians. Thei appearance is definately different from Arabs...
Just damn speechless!
Actually, the term originated with our policy on our Southern border. "Catch and release" was a policy for non-Mexicans who were caught illegally entering the country. We could send the Mexicans home, but we set court dates for non-Mexicans and released them because we didn't have the beds and facilities to keep them in custody. Most never showed up in court.
Not detaining the Iranians, on the other hand, was a diplomatic courtesy, regardless of what physical evidence of terrorist ties they were caught with.
The certainly don't deserve any "diplmatic courtesy" since they have no diplomatic status. Whatever the rationale, it had nothing to do with diplomacy. The idea that we abide by rules of evidence makes it very difficult to stop what is going on. I hope that Bush is really changing the ROE.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.