Iraq Guy writes from the desert:
More important (and current) is the thing with Sadr/Syria and Iran. Literally, we’ve pounded Sadr down to the point of submission several times now. You can tell when he’s out of bullets or people when he throws up the “negotiation” flag. So we pull back, the politicians pull up and he escapes and evades. Without getting up to look at something sensitive, I believe he’s in Samara right now, that’s where they secreted him off to. So of course, our reporting shows that Iran is
re-arming him and sending him non Arabic speaking troops.
We know Iran is doing this!
Even beyond that, the high Ayatola in Iran ordered Sadr to resume insurgent operations against the coalition. Sadr has also ordered a hit on Sistani….
So, yeah, I guess your assertion that we aren’t taking it seriously is somewhat correct… mainly because I think Syria and Iran have demonstrably committed acts of war against us already, but nobody seems to want to do anything about it, and nobody has the stomach to take out Sadr, crush Falujah/Najaf, etc.
What really baffles me is Rumsfeld and the rest of them saying we don’t need more troops. Obviously we do – if we want to close off the borders and cut off some of the arms and external terrorists ….and…. do a smack down on Syria and Iran…
One reason we might not be taking it seriously is that we’re planning to do the wise thing and withdraw. Though neocons like Michael Ledeen are frothing at the mouth for expanding the war into Syria and Iran, that’s pointless unless we’re also going to occupy Saudi Arabia and stay there for the next 100 years. At which point, the curtain has come down and we might as well get it out in the open and elevate George Bush to the purple.
I don’t see that being the plan, though. This information from the field makes more sense in light of a forthcoming withdrawal.