As with much of what the president announced this past week, why weren't we doing things like this months, or years ago?

U.S. officials tell CBS News that American forces have begun an aggressive and mostly secret ground campaign against networks of Iranians that had been operating with virtual impunity inside Iraq.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Congress on Friday that Iranians are now on the target list.

Is the administration finally waking up from its apparent delusions that we aren't and haven't been at war with the mullah-run government of Iran for decades?

We can hope. It never fails to amaze me that what seems so clear to us in the real world can be so ignored or belittled by the MSM or the political class, no matter what party affiliation they have...

Are they JUST NOW doing this, or is it just now getting reported so the MSM can ask, "Why didn't we do this before?"

We know the MSM ignores the good things that have come about in both countries. We know the MSM mostly reports on all of the war from inside the Green Zone. We know the MSM misreports some stories to help their liberal leanings. They've been caught LOOKING for Iraqis who don't want us there for their reports.

We know that insurgents are coming from all over the world. The citizens of Fallujah we're killing insurgents on their own 2 years ago. Did they stop? I doubt it, but it doesn't get reported. At the time the MSM reports were saying it was the start of civil war. But some reports actually included the fact that the insurgents being killed were not Iraqis. The locals knew they were foreigners and they knew they were up to no good. If we know all that from what the MSM did and does report, how can we, or the Iraqis, have been chasing everybody BUT Iranians from then until now? I can't imagine that we've not been chasing and killing Iranians in Afghanistan either. How would you exclude them in battles or in searches? If they are mixed in, we've been killing and capturing them already, it just hasn't been reported by nation of origin who we've killed or captured. I'm sure the information is out there. Ever hear a reporter ASK if we've killed or captured any Iranians?

I do think we should have been chasing Iran harder. Both diplomatically and militarily.Syria and Jordan too if we need to in the end. I don't think we'll need to. If they see us taking over yet another Radical Islamic regime, they'll back off. But if we ultimately need to attack Iran, won't it be easier to chase the insurgents into Iran from both Iraq and Afghanistan and catch them in the middle. Air attacks from 2 directions would be easier and more effective. Read history. When did the Wehrmacht start to fall apart? When they got caught in a 2 front war. Yes the Russian winter helped. But the Germans that died, from cold or bullet, in Russia would have been in Europe fighting if they hadn't been sent east to fight. It split the force and all the defensive capabilities.

Iran would have to split it's forces in several directions to fight back if we attacked from both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Are they JUST NOW doing this, or is it just now getting reported so the MSM can ask, "Why didn't we do this before?"

Steve beat me to it.

Joe Lieberman said today (MTP) that we need to support the President's new plan because it is indeed a new plan.

Are the comments saying its not a new plan after all?

It's not just Joe Lieberman. Bush himself said that it was the NEW way forward. Everyone from the top down has been told to call it new. It's crazy to bash the media for simply accepting Bush's own description of this. But of course, if we need this NEW way forward to win, it makes the OLD way forward of the past four years look stupid. Evidently some people here are sore that the media didn't improve Bush's storyline on its own.

Nonetheless, if the new way forward is to attack Iraqi Shiites and Iran, it won't last. The war on terrorism may be the titanic struggle of our generation, but it also isn't supposed to hurt very much. Bush has no stomach to either pay for the war with taxes or raise the casualty rates. Everyone with a sense of proportion knows that the Iraqi Shiites are far more powerful than the still-fighting Iraqi Sunnis, while Iran in turn is far more powerful than Iraqi Shiites. This "new" strategy of fighting Iran is as fake as the hydrogen economy.

For instance, a few days ago Rand gloated that oil is "only" $55 a barrel. (The news is so impressive that you might almost forget that oil was $20 a barrel in December 2001.) Why is oil down to $55 a barrel? One main reason is that the markets think that Bush probably won't attack Iran --- the markets can't spare 4 million barrels of oil a day. You can't have these things both ways and Bush has been forced to realize it.

I'd like to offer some light on the subject.

The President said in 2001 that much of this war would be fought "in the shadows". I don't think he was referring to ethically compromised methods, but rather "out of public view".

Why in God's name would the JCS, President, or Private Snuffy announce to the world that we had begun an intensive campaign against Persian networks as it was beginning? What principle of warfare mandates that one telegraphs one's punches?

Out of sight, with minimal reportage by various media sources and outlets, the administration has laid the groundwork for this offensive against the Persian empire.

Think of the problem as biological. If one wants to purge the body of a cancer, and one has tools to tailor drugs to the specific cancer, but the specific cancer changes with time, what is the best strategy?

I propose that the best strategy is to observe the cancer and its effects to identify where it is, and what biological pathways it uses to exist and expand. Then, one develops the biological tools (including chemo and radiation) tailored to destroy the cancer cells. Finally, one begins the treatment so that the cancer cells have minimal opportunity to adjust.

So, Mr. Simberg (may I address you as Rand), please don't assume that we are "just now" waking up to this. American policy actions since 2001 has had some element designed to analyze, isolate and collapse the Persian Empire's regime. It is only recently that we are starting to see the tip of the iceberg on the surface, emerging from the shadows...

MG

It might ahve taken Bush 4 years to realize the Iranians
were causing trouble in Iraq, because it took them
4 years to realize they had been snookered by Iran.

Chalabi was their agent, the Mullahs must have wet themselves
as Bush gave him millions. Then Bush was so focused
on the Baathists and Al-Qaeda that they failed to realize
Iran had hooked itself up to control the battlefield.

Iran figures as long as the insurgency is hot, Bush won't
dare attack Iran.

The Neo-cons are using the same logic hitler had.
The balkans are tough, so let's invade moscow.

Not that we will ever see the neo-cons serving in
the military.

Hey Anonyomus Jew-Hater,

I notice you haven't mentioned that Michelle Malkin is currently in Iraq. That is so unlike you.

I don't know about the other guy, but I have noticed that Michelle Malkin is in Iraq. After baiting the media for four years, she reveals a rare streak of honesty for a few sentences. She admits that Iraq is going to hell in a handbasket and that the media is basically right on this point. Then she reverts to form and rationalizes that since the media presents all of the bad news --- even though it may be the truth --- she has a duty to find good news.

But it's clear that Malkin's "signs of hope amid utter despair" don't amount to a hill of beans in regard to Iraq's future. The despair, not a few feel-good Christmas miracles, is the writing on the wall. So the destitute, pro-American Iraqis in her photos deserve a lot of sympathy. If we really want to help them, the way to do it is to bring them to the United States.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration's response to most post-invasion Iraqi asylum requests has been "What are you talking about? We liberated you." They even ignore Iraqis who are marked for death because they worked for the US occupation. Of all of the pigheaded decisions and convictions that comprise the Iraq fiasco, the Administration's Iraqi refugee policy is among the most shameful. It's like the story of the S.S. St. Louis in 1939. Anyone who truly cares about moderate Iraqis --- the ones that Rand Simberg mentioned --- should ask our government to allow them political asylum.

puckett

malkin is in iraq, i love her pictures of kids searching for food
in garbage heaps. So much for the wonderful economic
news, simberg bloviates on.

It'd be so much nicer if she would stay in iraq a few months,
to find out the truth on the 6 sunni's burned alive.
Maybe Simberg can join her there, carrying her bags.

Mr. Anonymous, I have friends who are in Iraq right now, doing a little something called fighting a war. You say that's almost nothing. I'd like to see you do it for even a single day. I don't see you and other members of the surrender lobby signing up to protect those Iraqis you claim to be so concerned about. The men and women of the US military are doing it every day. In return, you do nothing but spit on American military forces behind their backs and tell us how brave you are. You, sir, are not fit to shine their boots.

Fed Up

I have expressed nothing but the highest regard for our men and
women overseas in service.

I have utter contempt for the Neo-con agenda,

I have dislike for Simberg's stooging for Bush.

I have contempt for the Right wingers who screamed
"No nation building at Clinton, and now find themselves
trying to build a country in Iraq by GOP principles".

I feel sorry for our soldiers and wish they were home
safe, doing their jobs protecting the nation,
not off in Iraq carrying off the neocon fantasy.

25,000 men and women have been seriously wounded or killed.
For what cause? For what goal?

How many more should die for Simberg's hate of Hussein?
How many should die, because Simberg hates the Iranian mullahs?

How many more should die for Simberg's hate of Hussein?

How many should die, because Simberg hates the Iranian mullahs?

I don't hate anyone, Anonymous Moron. I don't even hate you. Do you like the Iranian mullahs? Are you stooging for them? Were you stooging for Saddam?

Simberg

I don't care about the Iranian government.

I really don't care about hussein.

I do care about My government, I do care about My Country,
I do care about Our armed forces.

You want our army in Iraq for another 3 years.
You want our armed forces attacking Iran.
you want another 30,000 men to become casualties.

What's worse is you want these events for no
good reason for the USA.