Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 16, 2007

Gertz: Bomb Tehran, Bejing, Washington!

So who is behind the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan?

"Iran" would the neocons say, because that's the next item on their target list. But these little chimps are thinking too small.

Anyone can bomb Tehran, real men bomb Bejing!

Bill Gertz is a real man. He writes in the MoonieTimes:

New intelligence reveals China is covertly supplying large quantities of small arms and weapons to insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban militia in Afghanistan, through Iran.
...

Some arms were sent by aircraft directly from Chinese factories to Afghanistan and included large-caliber sniper rifles, millions of rounds of ammunition, rocket-propelled grenades and components for roadside bombs, as well as other small arms.

The Washington Times reported June 5 that Chinese-made HN-5 anti-aircraft missiles were being used by the Taliban.

According to the officials, the Iranians, in buying the arms, asked Chinese state-run suppliers to expedite the transfers and to remove serial numbers to prevent tracing their origin. China, for its part, offered to transport the weapons in order to prevent the weapons from being interdicted.

Iran is bad, China is worse, but the biggest terrorist supporters are those in Washington. They are covering up the plot.

The Bush administration has been trying to hide or downplay the intelligence reports to protect its pro-business policies toward China, and to continue to claim that China is helping the United States in the war on terrorism. U.S. officials have openly criticized Iran for the arms transfers but so far there has been no mention that China is a main supplier.

Ok, what now. If real men bomb Bejing, who will bomb D.C.? Maybe we need real, REAL men.

John Tkacik, a former State Department official now with the Heritage Foundation, said the Chinese arms influx "continues 10 years of willful blindness in both Republican and Democrat administrations to China's contribution to severe instability in the Middle East and South Asia."

Mr. Tkacik said the administration should be candid with the American people about China's arms shipments, including Beijing's provision of man-portable air-defense missiles [through Iran and Syria to warring factions in Lebanon and Gaza.

Ahh - manpads (man-portable air-defense missiles) from China via Teheran and Damascus to Lebanon and Gaza. And Washington knows about this, but hides it for money -  sure.

One wonders why the UN's Roed Larsen is still complaining about nearly daily Israeli air-space violations over Lebanon or why the Palestinians still get terrorized with sonic booms.

Manpads in Gaza and Lebanon - if only ... 

But if Washington allows China to land airplanes full of weapons in Afghanistan anything is possible. Anything.

Posted by b on June 16, 2007 at 19:06 UTC | Permalink

Comments

While the accusation is ridiculous, it may be precient. The weaker the U.S. becomes, the bolder its global competitors will be. Russia and China may be hesitant to cross the U.S. now, but I'm sure they would love too. Time (or the invasion of Iran) may provide the opportunity

When they do, it wont be subtle. Helicopter losses on the scale the Soviets experienced 20 years ago will be hard to ignore. Modern anti-tank weapons with a 4 km range make IEDs superfluous. Armor piercing sniper rifles mean average marksmen would make foot patrols too costly.

I think even the dimmest of wits in the U.S. government will pull out by then, though....then again...

Posted by: Lysander | Jun 16 2007 20:08 utc | 1

fvcking Washington Times are bald assed liars. Compare and contrast what they say and what others say about the Iranian involvement. from b's link

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Wednesday that the flow of Iranian arms to Afghanistan is "fairly substantial" and that it is likely taking place with the help of the Iranian government

Chicago Tribune

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told CNN Wednesday that "there's irrefutable evidence the Iranians are now doing this."

"It's certainly coming from the government of Iran," he said. "It's coming from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard corps command, which is a basic unit of the Iranian government."

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, "It certainly is hard to believe that the Iranian government isn't involved in some way, shape or form in this."

Gates and other defense officials would not go as far as Burns did. The Pentagon chief also said he was not as certain about the link to Iran's Quds Force, which is accused of arming and training Iraqi militants.

NY Times Gates suggests something is going on but states quite clearly he has no proof.

Commenting on potential Iranian government involvement in the arms flow, Mr. Gates said, “I haven’t seen any intelligence specifically to this effect, but I would say, given the quantities that we’re seeing, it is difficult to believe that it’s associated with smuggling or the drug business or that it’s taking place without the knowledge of the Iranian government.”

So why would State have irrefutable evidence and DoD not have the same intel? I am seeing the Council on Foreign Relations everywhere lately and notice that R. Nicholas Burns is also a member.

Posted by: dan of steele | Jun 16 2007 20:34 utc | 2

Can we not just have the Iranians blow up a US battleship in a harbor and get on with the invasion?

Posted by: ralphieboy | Jun 16 2007 22:23 utc | 3

All Pentagon War Game Scenarios on Iraq Resulted in Disaster

General Anthony Zinni, the chief of US central command, war-gamed Iraq for more than a year before the invasion and every scenario he devised ended in a disaster, requiring many hundreds of thousands of US troops to bring it under control and remain in occupation for many years. Yet none of these scenarios was even considered by President Bush when he made the decision to invade.

Vice-President Cheney viewed the Iraq as a perfect opportunity to prove the “Rumsfeld doctrine” of low-manpower, shock-and-awe aerial warfare, without any need for the US to win allies or for the military to engage in “state-building” tasks.

There is now strong evidence that President Bush didn’t even know the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims when he decided to attack Iraq – and that dissenting opinions were simply blocked by Mr Cheney before they could reach the President’s desk.

Why do I have visions of Jr running to Ex-Chinese ambassador Poppy screaming, "fix it daddy, fix it"!!! Or, truth be known, he wouldn't and do the opposite, thereby, playing out his families highly dysfunctional role on the world stage and refuse to ask for help out of resentment and arrogant pride and shame drawing us all into his family drama. Geez, these guys are playing with hell-fire. And the recent reports of his boozing/hangover bug over in Germany doesn't help.

God help us if we have a drydrunk/alcoholic with the code to defcon 4. This is most frightening.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 16 2007 23:51 utc | 4

I got this from booman tribune via No Quarter. An interesting take on the moonie piece;

If you haven't read Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History, you should. It recounts the CIA's massive effort to kill Russians during the Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989). The American people knew little about the CIA's role in arming the mujahideen. The left was more focused on Central America and apartheid in South Africa. But there was another reason that the American people were largely uninformed: the Soviets barely complained. Why?

Well...it's fairly simple. If the Russian people realized that the Americans were arming their Afghan foes then there would have been pressure on them to do something about it. And one of the main principles of the Cold War was that U.S. and Soviet forces would never confront each other directly, but only through proxy armies and other covert means. That meant that the Soviets were, by and large, willing to take enormous losses resulting from American assistance without much of a protest.

When you read Charlie Wilson's War one of the things that will strike you is the zeal and enthusiasm our spooks had for killing Russians. They wanted revenge for Vietnam, and they wanted it badly. I don't think anyone should be surprised if the Russian military is filled with veteran officers that feel the same way now, and want to pay us back for what we did to them in Afghanistan. If the Russians were arming the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would hardly be a great surprise. And if you go back to the first days of the war in Iraq you'll see references to Russian military advisers helping Saddam.

Now, China is another story. ...

China actually helped us work with the mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan War. Some of the knock-off AK-47's we supplied to the muj were made in Chinese factories (as well as Egyptian). But things may have changed.

There are scarcely any sources less credible than the Washington Times or any columnists more dishonest than Bill Gertz. So, take the following with a pillar of salt.

"New intelligence reveals China is covertly supplying large quantities of small arms and weapons to insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban militia in Afghanistan, through Iran.

U.S. government appeals to China to check some of the arms shipments in advance were met with stonewalling by Beijing, which insisted it knew nothing about the shipments and asked for additional intelligence on the transfers. The ploy has been used in the past by China to hide its arms-proliferation activities from the United States, according to U.S. officials with access to the intelligence reports.

Some arms were sent by aircraft directly from Chinese factories to Afghanistan and included large-caliber sniper rifles, millions of rounds of ammunition, rocket-propelled grenades and components for roadside bombs, as well as other small arms.

The Washington Times reported June 5 that Chinese-made HN-5 anti-aircraft missiles were being used by the Taliban.

According to the officials, the Iranians, in buying the arms, asked Chinese state-run suppliers to expedite the transfers and to remove serial numbers to prevent tracing their origin. China, for its part, offered to transport the weapons in order to prevent the weapons from being interdicted.

The weapons were described as "late-model" arms that have not been seen in the field before and were not left over from Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq.

U.S. Army specialists suspect the weapons were transferred within the past three months.

The Bush administration has been trying to hide or downplay the intelligence reports to protect its pro-business policies toward China, and to continue to claim that China is helping the United States in the war on terrorism. U.S. officials have openly criticized Iran for the arms transfers but so far there has been no mention that China is a main supplier.

Defense officials are upset that Chinese weapons are being used to kill Americans. "Americans are being killed by Chinese-supplied weapons, with the full knowledge and understanding of Beijing where these weapons are going," one official said."

I am not vouching for Bill Gertz's assertions here. There is an obvious agenda from the 'GET IRAN NOW' caucus, and it appears this article is just part of their black propaganda campaign. What I want to talk about though is the irony that would be involved if this report were true.

In the 1980's, we used Pakistan as our staging point for arming the mujahideen. In this case, China is using Iran. That makes sense both because we are still allied with Pakistan and because Iran borders Iraq, as well as Afghanistan. The weapons are stripped of identifying markers, hiding their origin. This was the point of our supplying the mujahideen with only (knock-off) Russian weapons made in Egypt and China. It allowed us plausible deniability. The 'Bush administration has been trying to hide or downplay the intelligence reports to protect its pro-business policies toward China' just as the Gorbachev administration downplayed the CIA's role because they didn't want to risk a major confrontation with the United States. Naturally, this wound up infuriating both Soviet generals (then) and American generals (now) who knew their soldiers were getting killed.

In other words, if you just change the names around (USSR becomes USA, Pakistan becomes Iran, USA becomes China, Afganistan remains Afghanistan, but add in Iraq) this is a total repeat of the ass-whupping we put on the Soviets, only now it is our turn to take a beating.

So, Gertz may be pushing some disinformation, but it is dripping in irony. And if he is right, we should be worried about what happened to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics happening to the United States of America.

Posted by: Lysander | Jun 17 2007 1:01 utc | 5

Or why "men" shouldn't be allowed Anywhere near decision making EVER for Any Reason Whatsoever :)

In his current article on Counterpunch,The Day After We Strike Iran Prof. Gary Leupp writes:

Others note that Cheney is obsessed with the imagined threat of a rising China and the need to establish permanent U.S. bases in Central and Southwest Asia to “contain” the world’s most populous nation. The desire to control the flow of oil, the urge to check China, the passionate drive to destroy Israel’s enemies (alongside this neocon Islamophobia) are all reflected in U.S. foreign policy since 9-11.

As I read that, I thght. the underlying madness driving this is that these no holds barred male-supremacist fascists are acting out the terror & madness of staring into the abyss of Western Civilization. (Wasn't 911 but a mini experience of the apocalypse? Did anyone else wonder when they heard of that ~$1b in bribes shoveled to Bandar Bush that the Guardian revealed last week, if that was the money used to finance that agitprop nightmare?) They grasp implicitly, or otherwise, that patriarchal Civilization has destroyed the biosphere that has given us life, has cannibalized the Nation & the Nation's economy that has created them & allowed them to flourish, destroying America to create India & China, and finally exhausted the fuel that has allowed the final flowering of civilization. Seeing this they do what frightened arrogant male supremacists always do - turn to even rape & murder to prevail at any cost. Meanwhile women turn away, yawn & roll their eyes ...so what else is new.

Posted by: jj | Jun 17 2007 1:43 utc | 6

You forgot Venezuela!

... and to jj... Happy Father's Day!

Posted by: D. Mathews | Jun 17 2007 2:45 utc | 7

Reading through these comments, I am at a loss to describe my dyspepsia.

I have long felt that the four shots which blew PM I.Rabin down lit the fuse for the Ultimate Wars. True, sane leaders should be able to snuff the burning, but sanity is, at best, a weekend treat for those who walk those polished floors

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Jun 17 2007 19:42 utc | 8

The comments to this entry are closed.