In today's White House Press Conference, the President once again made the claim that Iraqi insurgents are receiving arms from Iranian sources. He admits that has no evidence that those sources are actually connected to the Iranian government, but he nevertheless strongly implied that they were.
In a few short paragraphs, Spencer Ackerman manages to summarize nearly everything that is wrong with the president's approach.
Bush declares himself deliberately agnostic as to why these Iranian munitions are in Iraq and who the Iranians may be giving them to. This is, however, the central issue at hand: not whether the al Quds force is operating with or without the approval of the Iranian government, but whether the al Quds force itself is actually responsible for arming fighters using the weapons against American soldiers and marines.
At stake is whether or not the Iranian government is pursuing what amounts to an act of war against U.S. troops.Any number of alternative explanations are possible: renegade Qods Forces could be trying to make money on the lucrative Iraqi black market for weapons. Iran could simply be arming its Shiite proxies in the civil war as opposed to seeking attacks on U.S. forces. And those proxies could in turn be unloading some of the weapons on the very active black market. (Remember, some of them were discovered in December at a compound belonging to U.S. "partner" SCIRI.) An element of the Qods Forces could be attempting to attack U.S. forces without the knowledge of their leadership. And so on. These are contending theories that require additional information to be compelling. And there should be some explanation of why most of the deaths of US forces from these IEDs are coming from Sunni insurgents who are opposed to the people Iran supports -- a fact that some believe points to the black market.
It's the last sentence that I think is particularly important. A vast majority of the casualties from IEDs are the result of attacks by Sunni insurgents. Not Shi'a, Sunni. However much you might think the IRanians hate us, I promise you, they hate the Sunni insurgents in Iraq more. And given that there is in fact also a Shi'a insurgency in Iraq, it is absurd to think the Iranian government would be backing their enemies over their friends. In fact, only someone who knew nothing about the region would come to such a conclusion. Which demonstrates the problem with this administration, I suppose.
UPDATE: Josh Marshall has a great point here:
For context, how many US-made weapons do you think are now being used against US forces. Indeed, how much US weaponry sent to Iraq specifically by the US are in turn being used by insurgents against US forces.
This goes back to the story I mentioned on Monday about how the US military cannot account for hundreds of thousands of weapons intended for Iraqi security forces. As the NYT has reported, it is quite likely that a significant portion of them ended up on the black market, and as a result, in the hands of the insurgency. By the logic Bush is using today, our own government is responsible for providing those weapons to the insurgents. After all, he has said explicitly that it doesn't matter how or why it is happening; the only thing that matters to him is that it is happening at all. And because it is happening, the Iranian government must be held responsible. Follow this to its logical conclusion and you can only conclude that Bush should be held responsible for all the US arms that have fallen in to the hands of the insurgency. Something tells me this isn't what he meant to say... is it?
UPDATE II: For the record, it isn't just Bush making this argument. Here's Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns earlier today:
I'll resist the temptation to draw an organizational chart, for obvious reasons. They're part of the Iranian defense and intelligence establishment. They're a major part of the Iranian government. Therefore, the actions of that force are the responsibility of that government. If that force is supplying technology for Shiite militants, that government is responsible.
Again, by that logic, the US government must be held responsible for allowing our own arms to fall into the hands of the insurgency in large numbers. It's the identical argument.
UPDATE III: Tim Grieve takes it one step further:
Maybe it's reasonable to assume that people in the highest levels of Iran's government know what members of the al-Quds unit are doing. Maybe it's not. Our view? We'll start making the leap of faith about what high-level Iranian officials must know just as soon as the White House starts accepting the same sort of arguments about itself.
How does this one sound, Mr. President? What we do know is that members of the U.S. military were responsible for acts of torture at Abu Ghraib. We know that. And we also know that the U.S. military is part of the U.S. government. That's a known. What we don't know is whether or not the head leaders of the U.S. government ordered the U.S. personnel at Abu Ghraib to do what they did. But here's our point: Either they knew or didn't know, and what matters is, is that they did it. What's worse, that the government knew or that the government didn't know?
Subscribe to this blog's feed
