There must be very few times in American history when a foreign government is accused of killing American troops, and absolutely nothing is done about it.
Every school kid used to learn lines like “Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead,” or “Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute.” The War of 1812 was fought in large part due to the “impressment” of American sailors by the British, a similar example of denial of freedom that fell far short of actually killing American sailors.
So what are we to make of the following statements by America’s senior military officer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen? Reuters reports that at a luncheon with journalists, Mullen said this:
-
“Iran is very directly supporting extremist Shia groups which are killing our troops. And there’s no reason … for me to believe that they’re going to stop that as our numbers come down….There’s no question they want to influence, and particularly in the south,” Mullen said. “They are shipping high-tech weapons in there … which are killing our people and … the forensics prove that.”
Mullen made these comments in the context of discussing the American troop presence in Iraq, and went on to say that any agreement to keep U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the end of the year “has to be done in conjunction with control of Iran in that regard.” So Iran’s killing of American troops is a problem because it complicates leaving some forces in Iraq?
What is one to make of it when our senior commander does not seem outraged by this Iranian conduct and does not demand that we put a stop to it? Our forces are not killing Iranians, but Iran has been killing Americans–in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also through involvement in terrorist attacks such as the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996–for decades, and it has paid no price. This is the probable explanation why continuing American promises, or threats if you like, that “it is unacceptable for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons” don’t appear to rattle Tehran. What credibility can we possibly have when they know we know that Iran has been killing American soldiers year after year without any significant American response.
It isn’t just Iran, either: the Assad regime in Syria became the transit point for every jihadi wanting to travel to Iraq to kill Americans (and large numbers of Iraqis). From all around the globe they came–Pakistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, you name it–to Damascus International Airport, thence to be shepherded into Iraq with the full cooperation and coordination of the Government of Syria. The American military response: none. This was especially galling, for whatever dangers may have existed in threatening Iran and then having to carry through on those threats if Iran did not cease acting to kill American soldiers, they were absent in the case of a weak country like Syria. A few object lessons would have persuaded the Assad regime to desist from its actions.
Soon we will have a new Secretary of Defense and a new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and one can only hope that we will also have a new policy: that neither Iran nor any other government can kill Americans with impunity. The least we owe servicemen and women who risk their lives for our country is the certainty that when we know a foreign government is trying to kill them, we will act to stop it. If we adopted such a policy, we would never again have to hear a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs reveal such a set of facts and suggest as an American response……well, nothing.
Eliot Abrams thinks that the incoming SECDEF might be an improvement??? We’re talking about Leon Panetta, major functionary of the World Government movement in the United States. He will without doubt continue the Obama policy of world appeasement. The irony is that the new CIA chief, General David Petraeus, the brilliant and effective architect of the recent Afghan strategy until Obama relieved him in order to pursue a defeatist policy, will be inheriting a largely defanged espionage agency.
I hate to seem paranoid, but perhaps the reason the SecDef and Chairman of the JCS were replaced was that they refused to go along with a military plan for Obama to get his way with Israel by force. This might also explain any number of departures from the White House leadership and other most senior civilians.
A case can be made that Obama is currently posturing so he can say “I tried everything else, and there is no choice but to force a settlement.”
Just a thought….
(From a very successful economic forecaster whose business was reading tea leaves, aka econometric models and their driving forces, for some of America’s largest corporations.)
I too must reply to Perego’s insistence that Americans stay at home and out of the affairs of other nations. First, who the H—- are you to order us to give up our freedom to travel? Second, we didn’t send troops into Afghanistan arbitrarily. We were responding to attacks on American soil on September 11, 2001. Had the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Towers, killed more than 3,000 people (approximately), and attempted to blow up the Pentagon and the White House stayed in THEIR HOMES, we might have been able to avert very expensive (in terms of casualties, wounded and money) and unnecessary involvement in conflict.
As for Iraq, that was the direct result of what happened during the Gulf wars. We were invited by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to stop Saddam Hussein’s attempts to take over their territory, including the lucrative oil fields and refineries. After WE stopped that, confrontation with Iraq was inevitable.
Thanks to Bert, Laura, Qurza, Yamit and the rest of the commenters for proving the Americans aren’t paper tigers and won’t curl up into compliant slaves just because you tell them to do so. Too bad they aren’t running the country.
Neither our political nor military leaders have the intestinal fortitude to say simply, “A state of war exists between the United States of America and Iran and Syria.” The present soft-pedaling of our leaders on the issue of killing American Soldiers with covert aid to the Iraqi Shia militias and other religious extremists will not stop unless a very high level of fear for their personal safety is introduced into the leaders of Syria and Iran, and into the hearts of extremist murderers who derive from any political or religious pursuasion. The policy of sanctioning Iran and Syria has not and will not work. No policy except the fear of their death will deter either of the leaders of these two nations from continuing their present course. A policy of destabilization of these regimes and a selective use of force, under the legal authority of a decraration of a “state of war” can serve as a policy alternative to being seen as a conciliatory apologetic country. Of course, it would also require that our own leaders display a bit of “backbone” which is sadly lacking.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R …..Gurza Dreaming
Laura:
We can read between your lines- you are coming thro loud and clearly and we stand up to applaud you without exception.
A well placed nuclear bomb in Afghanistan.
A well placed nuclear bomb in Iraq.
A well placed nuclear bomb in Gaza and west bank.
A well placed nuclear bomb in Iran.
A well placed nuclear bomb in Syria.
A well placed nuclear bomb directed at any nation or people who dares to object.
And we all say Bravo Laura for writing what we all fear to express.
@ Perego:
Spoken like a typical “blame America firster”. What gave us the right to be in Afghanistan and Iraq was Sept.11 and the global jihad being waged. How about for once blaming Iran and the jihadists for killing Americans. I’m tired of the notion that we have done something to anger them when in fact islam has been waging jihad for 1400 years. Now I do have a problem with the rules of engagement. These wars could have ended quickly had the troops not been forced to fight a politically correct war. If they are not going to be allowed to fight then indeed they should come home. As for Kosovo, that was a war that we should not have been involved with since we were taking the side of the jihadists over there.
We all all being tested; America, Israel and the entire world. Militant Islam is on the march towards world domination. The west and even Israel is showing a lack of resolve. History shows that this process always leads to terrible war when the victims end up facing destruction and fighting for their lives. In WWII we also were too slow to face the danger. In 1942 it was not certain that the axis would be defeated. After that war, as after WWI, we resolved to never let that happen again. But time dulls memories and what we have forgotten is now contributing to our potential destruction from a new enemy.
How can Michael Mullen state some words like these he said? Who give the right to be in Iraq or Afghanistan or in Kossovo or anywhere?
No body is gone to his home, so what does he bargain for their presence in any part of the world?
America must stay at its home and be sure no one american soldier will be killed by anybody.