Making the Case Against Iran One Lie At a Time
The Washington Post reports that the Army is working to fill a shortfall of thousands of advanced Humvee armor kits designed to reduce U.S. troop deaths from roadside bombs, including those particularly lethal weapons linked to Iran known as “explosively formed penetrators” (EFPs) that are now inflicting 70 percent of the American casualties in Iraq.
The additional protection is needed for thousands of U.S. troops flowing into Baghdad under President Bush’s “surge� strategy, where these devastating weapons are particularly prevalent.
The Army declines to disclose how many kits have been installed and what the shortfall is, but past experience has shown that chronic shortages of vital war materiel have been a result of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s determination to fight the war on the cheap and his belief that it would soon be over.
More here.
Meanwhile, Juan Cole asks a provocative question:
If Iran is providing EFPs, they would be for Shiite militias. Why then are Sunni insurgents doing most of the damage with them?
More here.
Meanwhile meanwhile, the Army finally presented its Blame Iran dog-and-pony show over the weekend in Baghdad, but there are some . . . um, issues.
More here.
13 Responses to “Making the Case Against Iran One Lie At a Time”
I always thought it was amazing how the United States geared itself towards fighting World War II. Conservation, rationing, war bonds, and not to mention manufacturing centers switched over to building warplanes and tanks.
These days we can’t even give our troops proper armor, while our government spends billions and billions on fragile high-tech gear like the F-22.
I’m wondering if Iraqis need to import these EFP devices from Iran. I’m no explosives expert, but even I know the basics about creating one of these devices.
I’ve heard that a metal coffee can can be used: The explosive is placed in the can’s bottom, and the metal lid is removed, bent into a bowl shape, and placed on top. When the device is detonated the metal lid is driven out with considerable force, and the blast bends the lid from a concave to a convex shape (the resulting friction heating it white-hot).
Also, a crude EFP was used by the Baader-Meinhof gang to kill a prominent German banker in 1988. Briefly, they placed a backpack on a bicycle which contained several pounds of TNT, a 20 pound convex copper plate, and a laser beam that served as a tripwire. When the banker’s heavily armoured Mercedes approached, the device was activated. When the car crossed the beam, the TNT exploded and the copper plate shot out at a velocity of about 8400mph (An high explosive will drive shrapnel at 70% the velocity at which the explosive detonates). As it flew the plate became more convex, bending into a bullet-like shape, and send the Mercedes (which weighed several tons) flying through the air.
And all of that is from someone with no military or police training. I’ve learned stuff like this from a few books on terrorism and the History Channel.
PS: I was surprised to see a picture of Shaun–he look a lot older than I expected. My stereotype of bloggers is that of white men between 20 and 40.
Alan G:
As Dylan notes in the lead-in to the post at my blog, “I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now.”
As it is, I’m thisclose to being 60 years old.
I don’t think this is the same link you referenced from Juan Cole, Shaun, but if you scroll down there’s a related one (commenting on NYT article) that Gray pointed out in an earlier thread. I take issue with it, because right from the start, Cole is mischaracterizing what the USG sources actually said:
The sources never said that the Iranian supplied IED’s were responsible for 25% of casualties, they said “a significant portion…but less than a quarter of the total.
Cole then goes on to argue why the number couldn’t possibly be 25%, when no one claimed that it was 25% (in fact stated that it was less than that).
CS beat me too it, but the Juan Cole piece doesn’t support that quote at all. Who wrote the quote? You? Because your passing it off as Juan Cole’s statement.
“If Iran is providing EFPs, they would be for Shiite militias. Why then are Sunni insurgents doing most of the damage with them?”
Maybe because Iran isn’t supplying them maybe? I’d bet we’re looking at the wrong country, and the correct target is to the South.
Josh Marshall provided the earlier link, which indeed was incomplete. I have updated the link.
Also, the idea that Iran would never aid Sunni insurgents is just wrong. Yes, Sunnis and Shiites fight with each other a lot, and viciously. But they also know how to play different factions off against each other to accomplish larger goals.
For example, Syria is a predominantly Sunni country, lead by the Baath Party which is also mostly Sunni, the party to which the viciously anti-Iranian Saddam Hussein belonged. Yet Iran and Syria work quite nicely together to support Hezbollah, each for their own ends.
Iran is served by an Iraq with a weak central government which is not an ally of the United States. If they can accomplish that by giving weapons to both sides of the same war, they will do so.
“Yet Iran and Syria work quite nicely together to support Hezbollah, each for their own ends.”
Hezbollah ain’t sittin on a giant oil reserve now are they? Your argument is weak since that’s the Israel issue, and Iraq is much, much, MUCH different of an issue to the two sides.
The part of the argument that never comes up is that we are expecting a higher standard of Iran than we are of ourselves. The US has sold weapons all over the globe, often supplying and training one side against the other. We armed the mujahadeen against the Soviets, and Saddam himself against the Iranians. Would the Soviets have been justified in an attack on us if they found US weapons in Afghanistan? Also this is not a new phenomena- it has been going on for years. Why are we only hearing about it now?
“The sources never said that the Iranian supplied IED’s were responsible for 25% of casualties, they said “a significant portion…but less than a quarter of the total.”
come on, CS, there’s no reason to use this phrase, “less than a quarter”, if the actual number isn’t at least close to it. for instance, if the number is 5%, “less than a quarter” is still technically correct, but misleading at the border to lying. Cole holds the administration accountable for their statements, he showed that the actual number can’t be even close to 25%. It’s the administration who distorts the picture that is to blame, not Cole, who puts this statement into perspective with other known facts.
Did any of you who say that Iran would never support Sunni terrorists actually read up on the nature of the Iranian regime? I have provided some quotes recently to get you started.
Gray,
I don’t see where he proved that at all. He seemed to basically be saying that all of the IED casualties must be in Baghdad (probably most of them are, but saying that all of them occur there is likely an overstatement). Then he says that the 25% number would mean that all of the Bahgdad deaths are due to IEDs. Well, it’s not that far fetched to think that most of them are, because these are by far the most deadly weapons that are being used there. So I simply don’t see why the number couldn’t be somewhere close to the 25% mark, close enough for that statement “significant number but less than 25%” to be a fairly accurate estimate. You are assuming that somehow Cole showed that the number is very low, only around 5%- but show me how he proved that because I certainly don’t see it.