View Full Version : Iran - CIA Spy Speaks Out
May be of interest to some...I hope. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
As A CIA Spy, I Saw In Iran What The West Cannot Ignore
We must defend freedom in Iran soon – or deal with nuclear-armed fanatics later.
CSM, 5 Aug 2009
Today the West must make one of the most important decisions of our era. Will we defend what remains of democracy and freedom in Iran, or will we succumb to Tehran's murderous government?
It's a question that goes to the heart of our own security. Iran is a thugocracy of Islamic mullahs, and it will soon have nuclear arms. Any misconception about the intentions of fanatics with nuclear bombs will have grave consequences.
I know because I spent years alongside them as a CIA spy working under cover in Iran's Revolutionary Guards starting in the 1980s.
The Guards Corps was set up as a check on the regular Army and to serve and secure the Islamic revolution. Thirty years of Western appeasement hasn't stopped them from terrorizing the West – or Iranians. Today, with Tehran's leaders caught in a power struggle over the June 12 election and the legitimacy of the regime, the Guards, led by zealots, are calling the shots.
The Guards – and the hardliner clerics they protect – are vulnerable, however. This summer's grass-roots uprising has put them on the defensive. A strong Western hand now could tip the balance.
We don't have a moment to lose. If we can't upend the Guards now, how can we do so once they have nuclear bombs?
Washington could lead the way by refusing to recognize President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who earlier today took the oath of office for his second, four-year term. Instead, the United States should demand the freedom – and the freedom of speech – for all who've been arrested and tortured in recent weeks. And we should toughen sanctions to include cutting off Iran's gasoline supplies.
The people of Iran are desperate for a show of support from the West. By standing with them, we can uphold our duty to defend democracy and take a stand for the security of the free world.
Such a stand would mark a radical policy change. For the past 30 years, the West has tried very hard to appease Iran's mullahs.
In the 1980s, I helped make known a secret pact between Iranian mullahs and some European governments. Thirsty for Iranian oil, the Europeans gave the go-ahead to Iranian agents to assassinate opposition members abroad without interference, as long as European citizens were not at risk. Hundreds of dissidents were gunned down.
The US has also been guilty of trying to appease the mullahs. Almost every administration after the 1979 Iranian Revolution has tried in vain to create better relations through back channels. Yet those efforts haven't stopped Iran's rulers from arming terrorists, taking hostages, and suppressing their own people.
The brutal killing of Iranians by their leaders that we're seeing today is nothing new. Ruling clerics have been killing political opponents, along with their families and friends, for 30 years – but inside prison walls.
I've been inside those walls and I've seen teenage girls who were raped before execution so they were no longer virgins and therefore, according to their Islamic beliefs, couldn't go to heaven. I've seen hundreds hung on cranes. I've seen women and men lined up in front of firing squads after being severely tortured; their families would be forced to pay for the cost of the bullets. Western officials were quite aware that this was happening, but they let their thirst for oil blind them.
Today, however, the screams of Iranians young and old calling for democracy and freedom cannot be ignored. The post-election uprising has started the countdown of the end of the thugocracy in Iran. This is the desire of the Iranian people. It should be our desire, too.
So far, the West has kept fairly quiet about Iran's unrest. President Obama and others say they don't want to give credence to Tehran's claims of a Western conspiracy behind the protests. And by not ruffling the regime's feathers, they hope to negotiate improved ties and resolve the nuclear impasse.
But how do you negotiate with a government composed of terrorists?
Right now, the Revolutionary Guards have near-complete control of Iran. This terrorist organization is expanding its power throughout the Middle East. Its ultimate goal is to bring the demise of the West.
With the help of North Korea, the Guards are working on long-range ballistic missiles in tests that are concealed by their space project.
The Guards have also accelerated their production of Sejil, solid fuel missiles, and are working nonstop to improve the range of those missiles. Today they can strike Tel Aviv, Riyadh, US bases in Iraq, and the US Navy's Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain. Their goal is to be able to target all of Europe.
The Guards are also working on their nuclear bomb project in facilities unknown to the West.
Iran's defense minister, Mostafa Najjar, who oversees the development of missile and nuclear technology, was in charge of the Revolutionary Guards forces in Lebanon that facilitated the attack on the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut on Oct. 23, 1983, killing 241 US servicemen.
The current deputy defense minister, Ahmad Vahidi, who oversees the distribution of arms and missiles to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas, was the commander of the Guards' elite Quds Forces and the chief intelligence officer of the Guards in charge of the terrorist activities outside of Iran.
Mr. Vahidi is currently on Interpol's Most Wanted List for the attack on the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires on July 18, 1994 that killed 85 and injured more than 100.
Many Iranian officials have Interpol arrest warrants, and even supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei has been recognized in courts as one who has ordered such acts.
Fanatic radicals such as these are incompatible with a free Iran. This is the best opportunity in 30 years to change course and stop succumbing to thugs. Will we seize it?
"Reza Kahlili" is a pseudonym for an ex-CIA spy who requires anonymity for safety reasons. He is writing a book about his life and experiences as a CIA agent in Iran's Revolutionary Guards.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0805/p09s01-coop.html
HowardCohodas
08-06-2009, 15:07
Fanatic radicals such as these are incompatible with a free Iran. This is the best opportunity in 30 years to change course and stop succumbing to thugs. Will we seize it?
I wish I knew how to seize the moment. It makes me pessimistic that I cannot.
longrange1947
08-06-2009, 15:41
Will we seize it?
There is no WE in Obama. :munchin :D
21BravoInDaSand
08-06-2009, 15:54
There's a liberal in office...what do you think "America" is going to do? Probably downsize our military & get extorted by their government.:mad:
Bloodseed
08-13-2010, 16:08
I purchased his book titled A Time to Betray, a few weeks ago. I saw it once before that a couple of weeks before i gave into temptation and purchased it. I at first resisted not knowing if it was legit, there seemed much room for him to lie in it since he used a fake name. Has anyone read this book yet? From my search results I have not been able to find anyone saying they have read it. This is the first time I have not had successful results with the search function otherwise I would not have posted, this will not become a habit.
A recent thread mentioned that Afghanistan was of little importance; I am uncertain that this is correct, but it would appear that Afghanistan may be a counter weight to Iran. The attached article surprised me.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704741904575409874267832044.html?m od=WSJ_World_LeftCarousel_1
IA comment by Eric Blehm
This entire relationship between the current CIA Chief and Karzai are detailed in my book: The Only Thing Worth Dying For, (HarperCollins, 2010) which was a WSJ bestseller a couple months back. I interviewed the Special Forces Team extensively that was there with Karzai and the station chief (known as "Casper" in my book) back in November and December of 2001. A couple of corrections to the article above. First, the station chief himself would not credit himself as "saving Karzai's life." He threw himself onto Karzai AFTER an errant 2000 pound JDAM bomb hit an observation post, and imploding the windows of the building Karzai was inside, nearby. Karzai was nicked on the face with a piece of glass. The station chief's reaction was spontaneous, and appropriate, but hardly saved Karzai's life. The other correction is your mention of the JDAM bomb hitting the American's and Karzai's afghan rebels position occurring as a result of the "chaos" of the battle. There was no chaos that December 5th morning. In fact, there had not been a bullet fired for almost fourteen hours when an overseeing, and recently arrived "staff" of Special Forces soldiers began directing bombs at a hillside cave that might, or might not have held enemy forces. It was a peaceful morning, and the men of Operational Detachment Alpha (the team that had been fighting with Karzai since November 14th, and were supposed to be executing any combat operations on the ground) were opening their first mail drop from home when their superiors came in and started dropping bombs, while Karzai was waiting for an expected surrender delegation from the Taliban. Three Americans and more than 50 Afghans were killed in a flash, and every member of ODA 574 was either killed or wounded... The truth behind this story, again, is explained fully from the perspective of the men who were there on the ground in The Only Thing Worth Dying For. No second hand reporting, just eye witness accounts. The station chief that day along with his CIA team, and various SF medics saved many American and Afghan lives. Incidentally, General Mattis, who is now the head of CENTCOM was the nearest American Officer in a position to respond to the urgent request for medevac, but he refused, stating that the situation was too precarious to commit his forces to. Meanwhile his Marines were livid and wanted to respond to the situation. Instead, an Air force quick reaction force flew almost two hours, from Pakistan to pull out the dead, dying, and wounded, and dropped them off at Camp Rhino where Mattis eventually agreed to send his men to help, about four hours too late. Mattis now holds one of the highest ranks in the Marine Corps, and the officers in charge of authorizing the bomb that day have all been promoted and decorated. The men of ODA 574, who did the fighting on the ground, and accomplished their mission all had their medal requests downgraded from Silver to Bronze Stars. See www.onlythingworthdyingfor.com for more info on the early days after 9/11 in Afghanistan, and the missions that set the stage for Afghanistan. Good or bad, this is how it went down.
...but it would appear that Afghanistan may be a counter weight to Iran.
Or something...some interesting thoughts on the issue:
Obama Offers Iran An Opening On Engagement
WaPo, 5 Aug 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/04/AR2010080406238.html
The U.S. should Test Iran's Resolve To Stabilize Afghanistan
WaPo, 17 Sep 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/16/AR2010091606067.html
I was listening to the following yesterday while outside working in my yard - an interesting program.
The Taliban in Afghanistan threatens to disrupt parliamentary elections. Iran releases an American hiker. And Palestinian leader Abbas affirms continuing peace talks.
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-09-17/news-roundup-hour-2
And one has to wonder just what might theocratic Iran be seeking from such an arrangement? :confused:
Richard :munchin
I'm of the mind currently that I don't care about democracy in other places. America is so messed up right now that we need to try to "seize the opportunity" here by paying attention, voting, and helping our own communities. Is now really the time to spend hundreds of millions of dollars we don't have trying to bring Iran back to the 70s when we can't afford to get American kids the education that they deserve? I see a lot of attacks on the POTUS regarding his lack of force with Iran, but as a registered independent this is one of the things I like the most. Why do the same people that "hate his spending" get angry when he doesn't spend money and (more importantly) American lives where they want him to. :boohoo
trvlr,
I think all parties agree that the fiscal obstinance in our government is intolerable.
I personally interpret the writers article as stating that if no timely action is taken against this thugocracy then more innocent (no doubt American) lives will be lost by perhaps nuclear means. I think many of us would go into more debt to save innocents lives from rape, torture and death no matter which nation we belonged to.
kawaishi
10-16-2010, 10:39
I'm of the mind currently that I don't care about democracy in other places. America is so messed up right now that we need to try to "seize the opportunity" here by paying attention, voting, and helping our own communities. Is now really the time to spend hundreds of millions of dollars we don't have trying to bring Iran back to the 70s when we can't afford to get American kids the education that they deserve? I see a lot of attacks on the POTUS regarding his lack of force with Iran, but as a registered independent this is one of the things I like the most. Why do the same people that "hate his spending" get angry when he doesn't spend money and (more importantly) American lives where they want him to. :boohoo
So messed up? Please explain that. I know that people are enduring some economic hardships but it's been worse in the past, things will get better, and we will have more hardships in the future. We have an incredible quality of life and wonderful freedoms that are taken for granted. How's this for messed up?
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2010/oct/11/jailed-for-words-nobel-laureate-liu-xiaobo/
Your community is your responsiblility so what have you done for your community today? If you are making that kind of statement and you are not personally taking action then you are wrong. The President isn't going to come and clean your park or work with your Boy Scouts because that's your job, and his job is to deal with Iran.
We have great opportunities for education in this country. Want a smart American kid well guess what? All the money and computer classrooms you can buy will not make a child more intelligent. It begins and ends at home with you being a parent.
Let me wrap this up the government is not our nanny and it does matter what happens in Iran.
It begins and ends at home with you being a parent.
There is a lot of truth in that.
the government is not our nanny.
Hmmmmm. They shouldn't be, yet they (the Government) have taken great steps through legislation to make it so ;) And more and more of the Governed are suckling from the Federal Milk Jug.
Issue I have had with Iran and seeing their work in local countries is Iran backing Hezbollah. Hezbollah is an Iranian project designed for its export IMO of a revolution on a global scale. Outside of AQ I feel it's fast became the single most dangerous terrorist network, well lets say sponsor terrorism. Just as AQ imports indivduals into Parkistan, the Ayatollahs has been recuriting or importing radical Shia clerics from Lebanon to Iran for theological training. Iran also recruited militants for their projects in the terror nexus for decades - Globally too. Iran has expanded its base inside it's own country, obtained additional funding from outside, and penetrated many countries around the world, from Africa to Latin America. Asia next??
In Afghanistan, Iran's strategists were undeterred by the presence of NATO troops after 2001. With the collapse of the Taliban regime, Tehran infiltrated Afghanistan's Shi'ite Hazara community in the center of the country and provided logistical support to the Taliban insurgency operating there. Evidently the Iranian regime is interested in driving out NATO the U.S.-led effort (ISAF), In the beginning with the weakening Karzai government in Kabul, and carving out its own Iranian influance in the Central Asian country. Tehran's reach in Afghanistan will only increase as Pakistan becomes increasingly unstable, maybe we are entering this point now.
Over the past few years, Tehran subversive activities have exspaned in the Arabian Peninsula. Then in Yemen, Iran has reached out to the majority-Sunni Yemen. Pasdaran's networks have hooked up with the Houthis, who are waging an armed insurrection in the northern tip of the Yemen with Iranian backing - state sponsor terrorism again. Yemeni President Ali Abdallah Saleh has accused Iran and Hezbollah of training the insurgents, who have battled government forces and attacked Saudi positions across the border. Last year, the Iran and Hezbollah had nearly established a military enclave in the southern corner of the Arabian Peninsula within Yemen and threatening Saudi Arabia and its most sensitive province, the Hejaz, home to Islam's holiest shrines Mecca and Medina. Iran and Hezbollah looking to control Islam's holiest shrines?
Iran and Hezbollah operating in North Africa? North Africa has been home almost exclusively to Salafi jihadists, it has witnessed increased activity by Tehran's Shi'ite operatives and backing. According to Kingdom of Morocco authorities, Iran has funded religious institutions whose first mission is to convert Sunnis to Shia, in what is coined as "Tashyeeh." Does this sound like what has happen in Pakistan? Does AQ really have the funding in PK now for this? All the money from Opium really backing and supporting operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Well back to Africa.. Last year and this year the Kingdom of Morocco, their Rabat government shut down a number of these entities and arrested people involved in them.
Meanwhile, last year in Egypt, Hosni Mubarak's government accused Hezbollah of creating cells inside the country and planning attacks against Egyptian and Western targets. Egypt, the most populous and powerful Arab country with a Sunni majority, many other Iran and Hezbollah back groups and more state sponsor terrorism again. What is really happen in Africa. Back in 2008 and last year, intense contacts between Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's representatives and Eritrean officials culminated in the signing of an agreement granting Iran's navy facilities along the coasts of the Eritrea. :eek:This strategically significant development provided the Iran and Khomeinists with hundreds of miles of access in the Red Sea. Israel is thus surrounded by Iranian proxies and the Horn of Africa is under the increasing risk posed by the axis of resistance. But don't we really just hear about AQ in HOA? Nothing really happening in Africa right.. naw nothing happening.
Since Iran's so-called "Islamic revolution," it has undertaken a more sinister intelligence activities throughout world and into Western Europe. Activities within intimidating and occasionally assassinating opposition figures and dissidents to Irans movement. But Tehran's most dangerous presence in Europe comes in the form of active Hezbollah cells in the west. Some will say they are more AQ cell, but do we call them that for Media to report on? Since 9/11, a number of European governments have detected and followed Hezbollah activities on their soil. Arrests have happen and Goverments have tried members of theHezbollah who were planning illegal activities.
Hezbollah and Iran in Latin America? Well as of the early 1990s, Hezbollah had established a presence in the tri-border area between Brazil, Argentinaand Paraguay. Columbia is the drug war area, but this lawless zone enables the Khomeinist and Hezbollah network(s) to develop illegal financial activities and train and plan for terrorist attacks in the region. The 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center there are prime examples of Tehran's terrorist activities and their global reach. Google it. Now the Venezuelan strongman, Chaves, has signed several agreements with Ahmadinejad's regime. IMO the biggest one was last year in April 2009. They signed a defense treaty that provides military and intelligence cooperation between the two countries. Venezuela has granted Hezbollah operatives permission to organize their presence under the protection of Iran's Pasdaran and local intelligence. According to U.S. Department of Defense reports, the Chaves regime provide Iranian units with Spanish language instruction with the aim of inserting them in a Latin American. Do we really need a better broder control here in America? One of the most dangerous aspects of Iran's presence in Venezuela is the increasing ability to install Iranian missiles aimed at the United States and other countries.
So does Iran have a problem and need to be forcused more from the west on internal issues. Khomeinist and Hezbollah networks look more towards a global forcus and should be viewed as a Global Threat. Maybe where the Iranian regime goes, Hezbollah follows.
I think trying to develop internally within Iran is going to be a fusing of the old square peg of on-the-ground realities into the round hole of mandated USG rules and Western Thinking. Something maybe like Afghanistan think..train villages in Shura Processes and forces to the Train villages in Traditional Justice, wait western Justice... Really? Highers think that works.. NATO, ISAF come one. Some great points brought in this article, but to following through with this current Administration. I don't really see it, naw, nope, no way. On the point of the Revolutionary Guards in near-complete control of Iran. Maybe looking at this as the Khomeinist and Hezbollah networks in full control of the country should be better. One in the same, maybe so. These terrorist organizations ARE expanding their power throughout the Middle East to Europe to Latin America. Iran's and Ahmadinejad's regimes ultimate goal is to bring the down of the West - America, UK and Isreal.
The President isn't going to come and clean your park or work with your Boy Scouts because that's your job, and his job is to deal with Iran.
All the money and computer classrooms you can buy will not make a child more intelligent. It begins and ends at home with you being a parent.
Let me wrap this up the government is not our nanny and it does matter what happens in Iran.
Children are indeed their parent's responsibility. When I have them I will worry about that.
It is my opinion that Iranians need to deal with Iran, and it is your opinion that our executive branch needs to. We will probably never see eye to eye on that so I won't bother expounding on my position.
Communities are more than just parks and Boy Scout Troops.
The biggest problem with our education system today are parents that don't raise their children to respect education, children that are too bullheaded to listen to their parents, and teachers that don't care enough to maintain basic educational standards. What can the government do about that??? Pretty much nothing. What they can do is make sure schools have enough room for students, and books for them to study. That is not the case in many public schools around the country.
Lastly, since you really think we should be dealing with Iran then how many other international problems should we be dealing with? Somalia for instance, poses one of the greatest threats to our national security. Will we ever let other countries handle their own backyards again? We can't try to save everyone. And we need to stop trying to save everyone.
kawaishi
10-17-2010, 19:36
History is shown that we cannot disengage ourselves from the rest of the world. It is in our own best interest to have a hand in helping nations or organizations that can help promote stability and peace. If we do not have an active role in regional events around the world there are plenty of anti-US factions that will happily fill the void. We're not saving everyone else so much as saving ourselves by helping others.
History is shown that we cannot disengage ourselves from the rest of the world. It is in our own best interest to have a hand in helping nations or organizations that can help promote stability and peace. If we do not have an active role in regional events around the world there are plenty of anti-US factions that will happily fill the void. We're not saving everyone else so much as saving ourselves by helping others.
Recent history shows that we have spent so much effort projecting power that we've lost our economic hegemony and suffered an education ranking free fall. In the 21st century it's impossible for superpowers to disengage themselves from the rest of the world so you don't have to worry about that. :)
incarcerated
10-17-2010, 22:44
Recent history shows that we have spent so much effort projecting power that we've lost our economic hegemony and suffered an education ranking free fall.
How do your remarks relate to Iran?
What would you have the U.S. do about Iran?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/17/AR2010101703364.html
U.S. says Chinese businesses and banks are bypassing U.N. sanctions against Iran
By John Pomfret
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 17, 2010; 10:34 PM
The Obama administration has concluded that Chinese firms are helping Iran to improve its missile technology and develop nuclear weapons, and has asked China to stop such activity, a senior U.S. official said....
Not sure how many get these emails.. But I thought this fit in here.. maybe just on the middle east section too..
Some pretty good read.. LINK (http://mim.io/d1c66?fe=1&pact=2039350388)
Looking to this, seems that Iran is spreading it's tentacles filled with anti-West poison. I like the way President Ahmadinejad said during his visit to Lebanon, he called Lebanon “the university for jihad.”
incarcerated
10-20-2010, 22:40
Looking to this, seems that Iran is spreading it's tentacles filled with anti-West poison. I like the way President Ahmadinejad said during his visit to Lebanon, he called Lebanon “the university for jihad.”
From Al Jazeera English:
US foes seek “new world order”
Venezuela and Iran denounce US imperialism as they flex their economic muscles by signing a raft of energy deals.
Last Modified: 21 Oct 2010 01:00 GMT
Venezuela and Iran have denounced US imperialism and called for a "new world order", saying they are united in trying to eliminate western dominance in global affairs.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, and visiting Venezuelan counterpart, Hugo Chavez, were quoted by Iranian media as calling their relationship a "strategic alliance".
"We are united and determined to end the current unjust which dominates the world and replace it with a new world order based on justice," said Ahmadinejad on Wednesday.
"Iran and Venezuela are united to establish a new world order based on humanity and justice.
"We believe that the only result of bullying movements of imperialism all around the world, and especially in Latin America, will be the fast decline of imperial power," Ahmadinejad said at a joint news conference, referring to the United States.
'US military threats'
For his part, Chavez condemned what he called "military attack threats against Iran by some countries".
"We know that they can never thwart the Islamic Revolution," he said.
Chavez said this is a time of "great threats" that make it necessary to swiftly "consolidate strategic alliances in political, economic, technological, energy and social areas", according to the state-run Venezuelan News Agency.
The Venezuelan leader said his government demands respect for Iran's sovereignty and that "those who think they are most powerful and want to impose their will on the world respect Iran".
Earlier the two leaders witnessed the signing of a series of deals focusing on cooperation in areas including oil, natural gas, textiles, trade and public housing.
The agreements signed include pacts for a joint oil shipping company and joint construction of petrochemical plants, as well as Venezuelan participation in the exploitation of Iran's South Pars gas field.
The two sides also agreed to build a refinery in Syria, Iran's main ally in the region.
Iran and Venezuela have over the past five years signed a series of agreements on oil and gas cooperation as the Iranian industry has been hit by pullouts by Western firms in the face of UN and US sanctions.
Chavez's visit is part of an international tour aimed at strengthening Venezuela's economic ties with eastern Europe and the Middle East.
He left Iran late on Wednesday and is due next to Libya and Portugal.
Iran has become the closest Middle East ally to Chavez's government as the left-leaning leader has sought to build international alliances to counter what he sees as US economic and political dominance.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Oh yeah, and there's this:
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Iran-Increasing-Enriched-Uranium-Stockpile-105371528.html
Iran Increasing Enriched Uranium Stockpile
20 October 2010
VOA News
Iran's atomic energy chief says his country has increased its enriched uranium stockpile despite international opposition.
Ali Akbar Salehi said Wednesday that Iran now has 30 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium, almost double the amount reported in June.
Iran is under four sets of United Nations sanctions for its refusal to stop enriching uranium. Iran says its production is for peaceful needs including for fueling a medical reactor....
The U.S. projecting power did not lead to it losing its economic hegemony, and I would argue the U.S. still is the economic hegemon.
Your opinion vs mine. There's no real arguing between our two views. To better explain mine I would say the trillions spent in OIF, and the national focus on winning OIF after it started could have been focused elsewhere (EDIT: I'm not saying that after it was started we should have quit early. Rather, that because it was started the manpower and money it required grew exponentially.)
OIF was and is a good example of us projecting. Preemptive war by definition, is a projection of power.
The WTC attacks had a deferential affect on our economy, and I don't ignore that. Yet OEF and OIF were two completely different wars.
Now think of adding serious efforts in Iran to this mix. To truly make sure that their Nuclear capabilities are off the shelf and to completely free there people up to be able to vote like we want, would require more preemptive actions.
I'm saying, what about America?
We could argue that America is still the economic hegemon but we would both have to agree that we're nowhere near where we were in 2004-5-6-7-8. Those aren't just recession years.
I think that illustrates my position on Iran.
................. To better explain mine I would say the trillions spent in OIF, and the national focus on winning OIF after it started could have been focused elsewhere...................
Since the war began how much has the US spent on it?
Since the war began how much has the US given away in foreign aid - military, economic and food?
Since the war began how much has the US spent on internal social programs?
What percentage of the US budget is directed to defense spending?
What percentage of the US budget is directed to social programs?
The above numbers are facts.
The Reaper
10-22-2010, 18:24
Your opinion vs mine. There's no real arguing between our two views. To better explain mine I would say the trillions spent in OIF, and the national focus on winning OIF after it started could have been focused elsewhere (EDIT: I'm not saying that after it was started we should have quit early. Rather, that because it was started the manpower and money it required grew exponentially.)
How many "trillions" do you think we spent in OIF?
TR
How many "trillions" do you think we spent in OIF?
TR
At least 2-2.5
These numbers come from me adding the Congressional Budget Offices 09-10 total cost predictions, and there cost estimate for 03-07. Granted, I did a very rough estimate but the number can be found (and crunched correctly) here:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8690&type=0
and here:
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/89927.pdf
Fox news, BBC, MSNBC etc reported similar numbers but I had to check it out for myself.
The Reaper
10-22-2010, 20:04
At least 2-2.5
These numbers come from me adding the Congressional Budget Offices 09-10 total cost predictions, and there cost estimate for 03-07. Granted, I did a very rough estimate but the number can be found (and crunched correctly) here:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8690&type=0
and here:
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/89927.pdf
Fox news, BBC, MSNBC etc reported similar numbers but I had to check it out for myself.
"Including both funding provided through 2007 and projected funding under the two illustrative scenarios, total spending for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities related to the war on terrorism would amount to between $1.2 trillion and $1.7 trillion for fiscal years 2001 through 2017."
Not what I am seeing from the summary. Less than $1.7 trillion, through 2017, for both OIF and OEF.
TR
.......Fox news, BBC, MSNBC etc reported similar numbers but I had to check it out for myself.
Since you talk of larg numbers and don't think we spend enough on folks at home look here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
I know it's wikipedia but it does put all the numbers in one place.
Notice the Mandatory spending and Discretionary spending.
Defense spending is under Discretionary spending and is only $663.7 billion while the rest totals around $717.9 billion.
Now go up to Mandatory Spending - like Social Security $667.95 Billion - like medicare / medicaid $743. billion - and $571 billion in "other mandatory programs".
Seems to me there is plenty of fat to cut before hitting the defense budget.
Not what I am seeing from the summary. Less than $1.7 trillion, through 2017, for both OIF and OEF.
TR
Understood. The latest hard data ended in 2007 and the 08-10 numbers were estimated. They explain that these estimated numbers were based one of two scenarios, (troops reduced to 30,000 by 2010 or 75,000 by 2013) but the first did not happen and the second is still up in the air. It also state that approx 75% of the total sum used up until 2007 went to OIF. A trend that i'm sure has not continued through July 2010 with the "combat roles" supposedly "ending" there.
The paper omits one of the highest costs, private contractors. Bottom line, I rounded very high.
If we round all the way down to 1 trillion from 2003 to OCT 2010, my opinion is that it's a large sum for power projection. I steer clear of talking about the human cost because I and I'm sure many of you have lost compatriots in that theatre.
From a purely political perspective, that's a lot of money. And I can conjecture that to do what this CIA man wants to do in Iran it will cost us far more.
Seems to me there is plenty of fat to cut before hitting the defense budget.
Gentlemen I'm not sure what we should be cutting I'm just saying that I don't think there is enough extra money to pursue another large endeavor.
Gentlemen I'm not sure what we should be cutting I'm just saying that I don't think there is enough extra money to pursue another large endeavor.
And I have asked you to find out just how we spent in other areas - which you blew off and kept talking.
So I gave you some numbers to solicit a comment from you which you again blew off.
Your "rant" seems to be that power projection - under defense spending, and some money coming from other areas - is breaking the bank. I have shown you that what we spend on defense is a small part of the budget.
It could be said that Social Security is breaking the bank - or Medicare / Medicaid. Does the Department of Education - other than giving rubbers for bananas - do anything worth the billions it costs us?
Think of where we could use the money we spend on dept service.
So is your opinion an opinion - or an informed opinion backed up by facts?
And I have asked you to find out just how we spent in other areas - which you blew off and kept talking.
So I gave you some numbers to solicit a comment from you which you again blew off.
Your "rant" seems to be that power projection - under defense spending, and some money coming from other areas - is breaking the bank. I have shown you that what we spend on defense is a small part of the budget.
It could be said that Social Security is breaking the bank - or Medicare / Medicaid. Does the Department of Education - other than giving rubbers for bananas - do anything worth the billions it costs us?
Think of where we could use the money we spend on dept service.
So is your opinion an opinion - or an informed opinion backed up by facts?
Pete, I apologize. It was laziness on my part. My opinion is an informed one.
Total Spent from 2003 (I'm focusing on OIF due to its preemptive nature) until now: Depending on who you ask, from 1-2 trillion. The Reaper proved that I don't have the hard data to say 2 so I'll put it at 1 Trillion.
Foreign Aid Worldwide since 2003: Using the appendix table A-2 of the Congressional Research Services "Foreign Aid: An Introduction to U.S. Programs" (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40213.pdf) I found the 03-08 total approx 168 billion. I could not find official numbers for 09'-OCT10 but the CRS graph in Figure 7 predicts approx 26 billion for 09 and 27 billion for 10. If that holds total foreign aid from 03-10 would be approx. 221 Billion.
I'm not sure what the full extent of "internal social programs" vs "social programs" is. That being said I cannot quantify its cost from 03-10. For purposes of this discussion I'll assume that over 60% of our spending goes towards internal social programs and social programs. You'll have to correct me if I'm to high or low on that.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Total_outlays_in_rece nt_budget_submissions) Total spending according to those charts and most news organizations from 03-10 is approximately 22 Trillion. 60% of that is 13.2 Trillion.
Defense Spending from 03-10 according to Table 6 of (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL34473.pdf) is approximately 4.6 Trillion. 4.6/22 = approximately 21. Making Defense Spending approximately 21% of our budget since 03.
I understand that more money is spent on social programs, we also have to think about how affective our government is at trimming the fat. I would say that former President Bush was the most affective percentage wise, but even he and his congress got bogged down with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
The reason I am so defense centric is because politically, it is far easier to start a war. Changing large public policy programs is usually political seppuku. That's why so many politicians have been dancing around the issue for literally decades of their careers.
Defense spending should and will always be high, but that's not to say that we can afford another major operation. I don't trust our current, or follow on Congress to be able to cut spending where it needs to be cut either. (As I said before, I'm really not sure where that is.)
I am sure that we can't afford to do what the author of that article wants to do. We can do it anyway, but I think that would be going against the lesson we should be learning from OIF.
Trvir,
We are certainly spending a great deal of money, and odds of Congress getting wisdom are slim. The current economic malaise IMHO will get worse before it gets better, empires can collapse as history has shown, however America has a few inherent advantages over potential economic rivals in addition to our industry, we also have natural resources and perhaps most importantly and overlooked agricultural dominance. If the Third World continues to develop, the "new normal" will see the US own less of the economic pie, though we will likely retain the largest piece for some time. It is very easy to focus on the foibles of our economic policy, while forgetting potential rivals nations are equally error prone with less inherent advantage. IIRC Japan was supposed to pass us in the 1980's, stimulating their economy with cheap loans, this backfired with two lost decades and counting. Both China and India have had impressive economic growth, both have a precarious income gap dilemma, and China like Japan has no natural resources. Russia is a one trick pony, if oil prices increase they are relevant, if not they are in deep Kim Chee, they might be anyway with their declining population. A united Europe has the potential to challenge economically, however they have yet to overcome divisive cultural traditions, and if the riots in response to austerity measures such as working two more years till retirement are any indication, they are going backwards. At the end of the day if push came to shove America can force hyperinflation and use food as a weapon. This would not be good for our economy, but it would devastate the China's of the world. This is not to say we have an excuse for irresponsible fiscal policy, we too will have to pay the piper, but economically if the US sneezes significantly ( along the lines of the great depression) China contracts terminal pneumonia. We are no where close to the crisis we had in the 1930's.
Nuclear proliferation however is the one threat we have limited options of response for. As the hegemon it is very much in our interests to be a spoiling state to retain the status quo. Mr. Ahmadinejad's rhetoric and stated intentions towards Israel combined with Iran's pursuit of nuclear power is a deadly pairing which could escalate to our detriment. IMHO dealing with this will be expensive, but not as costly as delaying our response, we can't afford to ignore this. IIRC Albert Einstein's views on nuclear proliferation were the the risks are not linear, the risks of going from 6 nuclear armed states to 12 isn't doubled but geometric.
Trvir,
We are certainly spending a great deal of money, and odds of Congress getting wisdom are slim. The current economic malaise IMHO will get worse before it gets better, empires can collapse as history has shown, however America has a few inherent advantages over potential economic rivals in addition to our industry, we also have natural resources and perhaps most importantly and overlooked agricultural dominance. If the Third World continues to develop, the "new normal" will see the US own less of the economic pie, though we will likely retain the largest piece for some time. It is very easy to focus on the foibles of our economic policy, while forgetting potential rivals nations are equally error prone with less inherent advantage. IIRC Japan was supposed to pass us in the 1980's, stimulating their economy with cheap loans, this backfired with two lost decades and counting. Both China and India have had impressive economic growth, both have a precarious income gap dilemma, and China like Japan has no natural resources. Russia is a one trick pony, if oil prices increase they are relevant, if not they are in deep Kim Chee, they might be anyway with their declining population. A united Europe has the potential to challenge economically, however they have yet to overcome divisive cultural traditions, and if the riots in response to austerity measures such as working two more years till retirement are any indication, they are going backwards. At the end of the day if push came to shove America can force hyperinflation and use food as a weapon. This would not be good for our economy, but it would devastate the China's of the world. This is not to say we have an excuse for irresponsible fiscal policy, we too will have to pay the piper, but economically if the US sneezes significantly ( along the lines of the great depression) China contracts terminal pneumonia. We are no where close to the crisis we had in the 1930's.
Nuclear proliferation however is the one threat we have limited options of response for. As the hegemon it is very much in our interests to be a spoiling state to retain the status quo. Mr. Ahmadinejad's rhetoric and stated intentions towards Israel combined with Iran's pursuit of nuclear power is a deadly pairing which could escalate to our detriment. IMHO dealing with this will be expensive, but not as costly as delaying our response, we can't afford to ignore this. IIRC Albert Einstein's views on nuclear proliferation were the the risks are not linear, the risks of going from 6 nuclear armed states to 12 isn't doubled but geometric.
I agree with your economic views. As for nuclear proliferation, I view Pakistan as the greatest threat. It is by far the most unstable nuclear power. If Iran gets them, and Israel is so inclined, they have more than enough assets to destroy the threat. Why not let them do it? We enable them with our funding anyway right?
I feel that we need to let other regions start taking the lions share of their own defense while we distance ourselves from our economic rivals. I understand the fact that time is not our friend, but I highly doubt we'll be in the economic position needed to conduct the operation needed before Iran hits their weapons grade stride.
IMO, OEF should be our main effort until it's a success.
History is shown that we cannot disengage ourselves from the rest of the world.Recent history shows that we have spent so much effort projecting power that we've lost our economic hegemony and suffered an education ranking free fall....
I think it is more appropriate to say that many historians have argued these points rather than history has shown these points to be "true." MOO, too many arguments these days that begin with "History shows..." would not survive first contact with a decently stocked public library.
(FWIW/IMO, the only "lesson of history" is that there are no "lessons of history" other than what we construct.)It is in our own best interest to have a hand in helping nations or organizations that can help promote stability and peace. If we do not have an active role in regional events around the world there are plenty of anti-US factions that will happily fill the void. We're not saving everyone else so much as saving ourselves by helping others.I may be misreading your post, but as written, it reminds me too much of the zero sum gamesmanship that too often informed too many aspects of American national security policy during the Cold War. The enemy of our enemy is not always our friend. Stability and peace can come from an iron fist.
The reason I am so defense centric is because politically, it is far easier to start a war.I respectfully disagree with this thumbnail of American military and diplomatic history. If one runs down the list of America's wars, overt combat operations have begun only after prolonged political debate and diplomatic maneuvering. The lone exception would be the Second Gulf War (Operation DESERT STORM).
.......I feel that we need to let other regions start taking the lions share of their own defense while we distance ourselves from our economic rivals. .......
So I take it you believe we should pull out of NATO?
After all, there is no USSR anymore. Nothing to fear from the East.
NATO is an interesting subject. Has it's time come and gone. Will it's time come again? Is it even needed? Does everyone pull their weight? Can everyone assist in force projection? Oh, wait, NATO don't do that - it's a European thing. Should a country's command input be based on troop input?
Think of all the jobs we could create around military bases in the US if we pulled all the troops out of Europe. All those military paychecks being poured into local communities.
If all you think about is money it's an easy choice.
So I take it you believe we should pull out of NATO?
After all, there is no USSR anymore. Nothing to fear from the East.
NATO is an interesting subject. Has it's time come and gone. Will it's time come again? Is it even needed?
<<SNIP>>IMO, as long as there's a Russia, there will be a need for NATO. YMMV.
I respectfully disagree with this thumbnail of American military and diplomatic history. If one runs down the list of America's wars, overt combat operations have begun only after prolonged political debate and diplomatic maneuvering. The lone exception would be the Second Gulf War (Operation DESERT STORM).
In context I meant that compared to overhauling Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security/Unemployment/Welfare it is far easier to start a war.
So I take it you believe we should pull out of NATO?
NATO is an interesting subject. Has it's time come and gone. Will it's time come again? Is it even needed? Does everyone pull their weight? Can everyone assist in force projection? Oh, wait, NATO don't do that - it's a European thing. Should a country's command input be based on troop input?
If all you think about is money it's an easy choice.
I think we should stay with NATO. That being said, other nations have no problem taking a backseat when their own defense is on the line. OEF for example has led to strikes on terrorist cells that have planned to hit targets all across continental Europe. Yet most of those countries continue to do little to nothing to aid the war effort. I assume that the same thing would happen in Iran.
As I've said before, it's easiest to talk about money. If we did hit Iran, then we would IMO need to spend as much as necessary to make sure we achieve our goals their. I just hate to see all of these countries squatting under the freedoms we constantly provide them.
If I were in the Israeli military I'd be ecstatic when I saw the American military rolling into Iran. Less work for me. Their hundreds of billions, not mine. And most importantly, their blood, not mine.
Bottom line for me.
If the Iranian populous doesn't care enough about its own 'freedoms' to conduct a popular uprising through voting and probably "other means" then I don't care enough to deploy to that place to save them.
If the Israelis feel comfortable enough with a nuclear weapon ready Iran to not attack, then I don't think we need to attack Iran to save Israel.
Of course if orders come down then that's exactly what I'll do, to the best of my ability.
In context I meant that compared to overhauling Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security/Unemployment/Welfare it is far easier to start a war.Then what accounts for the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and the Clinton Administration's foot dragging over Iraq?
Why, in 2008, did a majority of voters, in their infinite wisdom, vote for a candidate who wanted to overhaul vast segments of American public policy while demonstrating a galling disinterest in national security policy?I think we should stay with NATO. That being said, other nations have no problem taking a backseat when their own defense is on the line.When has this statement ever not characterized the politics and diplomacy of coalition warfare? OEF for example has led to strikes on terrorist cells that have planned to hit targets all across continental Europe. Yet most of those countries continue to do little to nothing to aid the war effort. How does one know this? The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I just hate to see all of these countries squatting under the freedoms we constantly provide them. FWIW, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of contemporary international history.
If the Iranian populous doesn't care enough about its own 'freedoms' to conduct a popular uprising through voting and probably "other means" then I don't care enough to deploy to that place to save them.
I agree with this in philosophy, however pragmatically as the hegemon we are incented to maintain the geopolitical status quo to our advantage. Or realistically in short if it's a big enough mess ultimately America will have to get involved to protect her interests. Isolationism has been a costly policy time and time again. IMHO the key words here are American interests, we are not crusaders. For example the genocide in Darfur is horrible, we are not there because there isn't sufficient American interest, yet if they as rumored begin harboring AQ cells we should get involved quickly. The notion the populations of Afghanistan, Iran, and Mexico should all deal with their own respective threats is sound, however in reality the Taliban, Ahmadinejad, and the Cartels respectively rule those countries, if their populations can't deal with this, and frankly it doesn't seem they can, the threat to America warrants our intervention, the questions are only when, how, and at what cost. No question we have to keep a close eye on our friends in Pakistan as well.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. FWIW, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of contemporary international history.
To the first:
"Drone attacks 'linked' to suspected Europe terror plot"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11481733
That's the latest example, but if we go back to the OEF invasion, one of ISAF's rallying cries was that the coalition was formed in order to prevent Al Qaeda attacks on their own countries.
According to most of our intelligence officials, Al Qaeda is the worlds major terrorist threat. One of Al Qaeda's goals is to attack the Western influence. One can then assume that as we attack Al Qaeda cells we are preventing them from attacking "Western" nations. These are broad strokes, but certainly not complete fallacy as you imply with "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
"FWIW, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of contemporary international history."
Understandable, but if you count the last 20 years as contemporary history we've done more for democracy and humanitarian aid around the world than almost all the NATO countries and Israel combined.
To the first:
"Drone attacks 'linked' to suspected Europe terror plot"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11481733
That's the latest example, but if we go back to the OEF invasion, one of ISAF's rallying cries was that the coalition was formed in order to prevent Al Qaeda attacks on their own countries.
According to most of our intelligence officials, Al Qaeda is the worlds major terrorist threat. One of Al Qaeda's goals is to attack the Western influence. One can then assume that as we attack Al Qaeda cells we are preventing them from attacking "Western" nations. These are broad strokes, but certainly not complete fallacy as you imply with "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
"FWIW, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of contemporary international history."
Understandable, but if you count the last 20 years as contemporary history we've done more for democracy and humanitarian aid around the world than almost all the NATO countries and Israel combined.T--
We'll be long gone before future generations of eggheads can find out "what really happened" during GWOT. I'm of the belief that many of our allies who appear not to be doing their share of the 'heavy lifting' are contributing 'off the books.' Domestic politics drive issues of diplomacy and war. Many of our European partners simply could not build the level of consensus necessary to do more out in the open. (Just my $0.02.)
As for the balance sheet of contemporary history (which I would date from the end of the Second World War to the present), I don't know if score keeping does more harm than good. If we're going to build the kind of rapport we need to get others to do more, might our interests be better served if we enable them to help in ways they can rather than just in the ways we think they should?
T--
We'll be long gone before future generations of eggheads can find out "what really happened" during GWOT. I'm of the belief that many of our allies who appear not to be doing their share of the 'heavy lifting' are contributing 'off the books.' Domestic politics drive issues of diplomacy and war. Many of our European partners simply could not build the level of consensus necessary to do more out in the open. (Just my $0.02.)
As for the balance sheet of contemporary history (which I would date from the end of the Second World War to the present), I don't know if score keeping does more harm than good. If we're going to build the kind of rapport we need to get others to do more, might our interests be better served if we enable them to help in ways they can rather than just in the ways we think they should?
Agreed.
Operation Enduring Freedom: Foreign Pledges of Military & Intelligence Support
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6207.pdf
Coalition Countries
http://www.centcom.mil/en/countries/coalition/
ISAF Coalition Countries
http://www.centcom.mil/isaf-placemat
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Roguish Lawyer
10-24-2010, 17:00
Since you talk of larg numbers and don't think we spend enough on folks at home look here -
Defense spending is for the folks at home.
Defense spending is for the folks at home.
True but most don't think it's so unless they can buy something with it.
incarcerated
10-26-2010, 01:37
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304287204575575520970514654.html?m od=googlenews_wsj
Iran Loads Fuel Into First Nuclear Reactor
MIDDLE EAST NEWS
OCTOBER 26, 2010, 3:24 A.M. ET
Associated Press
TEHRAN, Iran—Iran began loading fuel into the core of its first nuclear power plant on Tuesday, moving closer to the start-up of a facility that the U.S. once hoped to stop over fears of Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
Iranian and Russian engineers started moving nuclear fuel into the main reactor building in August but a reported leak in a storage pool delayed injection of the fuel into the reactor.
"Fuel injection into the core of the reactor has begun," the state television announced....
At the plant's inauguration on Aug. 21, Iran's Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi had said loading the fuel into the reactor core would take place over two weeks and the plant would then produce electricity two months later in November. Earlier this month, he said that the start up was postponed because of a small leak. Originally there had been speculation that a computer worm found on the laptops of several plant employees might have been behind the delay.
greenberetTFS
10-26-2010, 16:46
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304287204575575520970514654.html?m od=googlenews_wsj
Iran Loads Fuel Into First Nuclear Reactor
MIDDLE EAST NEWS
OCTOBER 26, 2010, 3:24 A.M. ET
Associated Press
TEHRAN, Iran—Iran began loading fuel into the core of its first nuclear power plant on Tuesday, moving closer to the start-up of a facility that the U.S. once hoped to stop over fears of Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
Iranian and Russian engineers started moving nuclear fuel into the main reactor building in August but a reported leak in a storage pool delayed injection of the fuel into the reactor.
"Fuel injection into the core of the reactor has begun," the state television announced....
At the plant's inauguration on Aug. 21, Iran's Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi had said loading the fuel into the reactor core would take place over two weeks and the plant would then produce electricity two months later in November. Earlier this month, he said that the start up was postponed because of a small leak. Originally there had been speculation that a computer worm found on the laptops of several plant employees might have been behind the delay.
I'll give it less than a year before Israel pulls the plug on this!...........:boohoo
Lets see how close the "old fart" will be on their eventually putting an end to Iran's nuclear power plant ambitions............;)
Big Teddy :munchin
I'll give it less than a year before Israel pulls the plug on this!...........:boohoo
Lets see how close the "old fart" will be on their eventually putting an end to Iran's nuclear power plant ambitions............;)
Big Teddy :munchin
I think we as a world are to late. IMHO..
I think someone is talking Israel out of acting on IRAN.
Maybe a different world or maybe they are just to far along.
incarcerated
10-26-2010, 23:00
Maybe a different world or maybe they are just to far along.
I’m still waiting for “crippling sanctions.” :munchin
I’m still waiting for “crippling sanctions.” :munchin
ROTFLMAO... :eek: You will have a walking cane or mobile scooter by then.
incarcerated
10-29-2010, 01:14
You will have a walking cane or mobile scooter by then.
Very true, but I expect that, long before then, things may pan out along these lines (for those too young to recognize the reference, it’s explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Enough_at_Last
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th4cmtEJniE&feature=related ).