I can't believe the New York Times reprinted without critical assessment the newest hype for war with Iran...
The link that American intelligence has drawn to Iran is based on a number of factors, including an analysis of captured devices, examination of debris after attacks, and intelligence on training of Shiite militants in Iran and in Iraq by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and by Hezbollah militants believed to be working at the behest of Tehran.
' In the last three months of 2006, attacks using the weapons accounted for a significant portion of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq, though less than a quarter of the total, military officials say.'
It's Judith Miller all over again.....and it's just as inaccurate (or unlikely) this time as it was in 2002...Juan Cole over at Informed Comment summarizes it for us...
This claim is one hundred percent wrong. Because 25 percent of US troops were not killed fighting Shiites in those three months. Day after day, the casualty reports specify al-Anbar Province or Diyala or Salahuddin or Babil, or Baghdad districts such as al-Dura, Ghaziliyah, Amiriyah, etc.--and the enemy fighting is clearly Sunni Arab guerrillas. And, Iran is not giving high tech weapons to Baathists and Salafi Shiite-killers. It is true that some casualties were in "East Baghdad" and that Baghdad is beginning to rival al-Anbar as a cemetery for US troops
Robert Burns of AP observes,
"The increasingly urban nature of the war is reflected in the fact that a
higher percentage of U.S. deaths have been in Baghdad lately. Over the course of
the war through Feb. 6, at least 1,142 U.S. troops have died in Anbar province,
the heart of the Sunni Arab insurgency, according to an AP count. That compares
with 713 in Baghdad. But since Dec. 28, 2006, there were more in Baghdad than in
Anbar - 33 to 31."
In addition to this, there was a briefing on the same subject in Baghdad this morning making basically the same claims Here's the Reuters link. Later reports tell us that the "briefing" was "off camera" and made by officials who remained anonymous. Hmmmmmmm......
Just for the record, the saying is:
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on ME!