kudos on a great article and a terrific blog.
Richard

Well, again there are possible responses to this.

Say, for example, that a couple of ex-spec ops guys were running their own little local insurgent groups. Staging this sort of action would be very tricky, while running some of the constant IED attacks (and there are a lot more of these than there are, say, car bombings) would probably take up a great deal of your working life. It is possible that this is a sign that groups are simply becoming more sophisticated in their organisation and daring, along with an opportunity presenting itself.

On the other hand, the fact that no-one has stepped up and said “It was us! Allah Akbar!” doesn’t lend support this line. I’m still agnostic about this one. Awaiting further information.

“A plan by the Bush administration to release detailed and possibly damning specific evidence linking the Iranian government to efforts to destabilize Iraq have been put on hold, U.S. officials told FOX News… for several reasons, including concerns over the reaction from Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — as well as inevitable follow-up questions that would be raised over what the U.S. should do about it.”

Or, and I put this out merely as speculation, because it is an unconvincing pile of the proverbial.

Of course, this is unlikely. Since when has the Bush administration deliberately twisted intel to paint a picture that they wanted painted?

This is one of my problems with drawing conclusions on these reports. Every side has such clear motives to lie that pretty much nothing any of them, Iran, US military, Iraqi government, Sadr, Al-Q, any of them, says can be trusted. They are all fighting propeganda wars in their own way.

“With Iran contributing to the deaths of Americans and Iraqis, it makes pacifying the country even more of an imperative.”

With all respect, it is also a feat of the imagination. If Iran is truly playing in Iraq as a destabalising force then there is no hope. We already clearly cannot cope with the Sunni nationalist insurgency, nor can we deal with Jihaddist insurgents, nor can we deal with Al-Sadr. We have dealt with the Badr by simply rebadging them the “Iraqi Police Force”, and, frankly, we are propping up a Pro-Iranian regime in Bagdhad. If the Iranians really want to play then who do we support? Al-Sadr is obviously out, Malaki (Dawa, SCIRI, Sistani, et al) are on the wrong side so aren’t our buddies, Jihaddis would rather eat GI eyeballs on a stick than cooperate, Sunnis are too weak. Even the Kurds are clearly standing in the dark corner of the pub watching the fight and keeping protective hands in front of their pints. Who’s left? All the power blocks in Iraq are ranged against us, just some of them want us to obliterate (or provide cover for them to obliterate) their enemies.

Frankly, it is looking more and more likely that a secular nationalist Sunni strongman would be the only thing that could truly be called a US victory.

And if anyone thinks “Traitor, you just don’t want to win”, I desperately wish my assesment of the situation wasn’t true, and that Iraq could be a secure, stable place to live. It isn’t going to happen though. In fact, I’ll happily put down $100 that next year things in Iraq are as bad or worse than they are today.