Don’t Trust – Verify II
The Administration is making specific testable claims about Iranian arming of Iraqi militias. Congress needs to announce that, as part of its constitutional authority to declare, or not declare, war, it will audit those claims independently. The executive branch needs to turn over a complete database of all IED attacks and the associated forensic evidence records. It needs to designate IED attacks as EFP-based or non-EFP based. Congressional staff can then validate
*the actual scope of declared EFP attacks – their number and frequency over time, and as a percentage of total IED attacks on American troops
* whether the declared EFP attacks are “more lethal” than other IED attacks
* whether the forensic markers of declared EFP attacks really are distinct from those of other IED attacks
* whether the forensic markers can in fact be “traced to Iran.”
* whether equipment transfers can be shown to have been conducted with the authorization of Iranian government agencies
* whether Iraqi government officials authorized the transfer of any equipment by Iran into the country they nominally rule
* whether statements by detainees about Iranian involvement in supplying Shiite militias with EFPs were obtained under torture by US personnel, Iraqi personnel or contractors
To this end, Congressional staffers should take testimony from US and foreign government officials and independent outside experts and do actual analysis and investigation. The intelligence and armed-services committees would be the appropriate Congressional bodies to take up the work.
If Congress can validate the Administration’s case, the US should then go “the full Adlai Stevenson.” The US operates in Iraq under a security-council mandate (pdf). Iranian intelligence does not. Therefore, the UN Security Council is the appropriate first venue to seek a remedy. This will mean the US government will need to have a more impressive case than Colin Powell’s famous travesty of February 2003. It will need to stand up to independent scrutiny.
After all that, Congress should entertain a Presidential request for a declaration of war, if the Administration determines that it wants to attack Iran in response to demonstrated Iranian aid to Iraqi forces in conflict with American troops. As always, there may be good reasons not to resort to war even in the face of covert support for attacks on US troops deployed abroad. That’s a political determination to be made. But a unilateral executive decision to attack Iran on the basis of unaudited claims merits nothing but opposition. So does a Congressional decision to shirk its responisibilities under the constitution by taking the word of another branch of government, especially in light of the sad history of the last five years.
Comment by Thoreau —
February 10, 2007 @ 10:14 am
Well, we basically handed power over to Iranian-backed parties. Here we are, a foreign power, in what is essentially Iranian territory, and we wonder why Iran armed resistance to our presence might receive Iranian support?
I’m quite ready to believe that Iran might be supporting the insurgents, but I don’t see attacking Iran as a way of making anything better. I see it as a way of bringing on even more attacks by Iran and its loyal assets.
Comment by Andrew Olmsted —
February 10, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
Just a note: any EFP IED is going to be more deadly than a conventional IED. That’s the strength of EFPs.
Please note that I’m not making any claims about how frequent EFP IEDs are in country or where they are coming from when they are used. I have no idea, and I suspect that the answer is probably a mix of Iraqi leftovers and outside aid from a combination of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. But that’s speculation, and I concur fully with your recommendations.
Comment by Nell —
February 10, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
Wish I’d had this post with me when we antiwar lobbyists were being handed the “Iranian meddling” line by Sen. Warner’s aide almost two weeks ago! Think I’ll send a reference to your excellent series in my follow-up letter and email.
Lacking the handy list of specific demands, I restricted myself to expressing the public’s fed-up-ness with unaudited claims, and our refusal even to take them seriously unless the evidence to support them were made available to skeptics in a public forum.
Comment by Jim Henley —
February 10, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Nell, at least you gave them what-for.
Andrew, thanks. I apologize if I was unclear about EFPs being necessarily more powerful than other IEDs. I would like to see the statistics in one database, though, so we can compare lethality and forensic evidence. We’ve heard this week everything from “a small percentage” (Gates) to one quarter of all US combat deaths in Q4 2006 (Gordon).
Comment by capt —
February 10, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
I wonder is forensics can tell if any of the Al Qaqaa explosives are in the mix?
Comment by tc —
February 10, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
From Yglesias’ blog, a comment from Gregory Cochran, the most prescient person I’ve ever seen on Iraq:
“At this point the Iranians have’t done diddly squat in Iraq – even if you believe the Administration claims. Nothing compared to what they could do…
For example. we have not seen late-model anti-tank rockets in Iraq, the type that Hezbollah used in the latest dustup. I guarantee you that we’d notice. We haven’t seen late-model anti-aircraft missiles. We haven’t seen high-grade, high-power sniper rifles. We see almost no sign that anyone opposing us has had high-quality professional training – although the Iranians may not be up to that anyhow, and the Iraqis would probably be lousy pupils.”
Comment by md 20/400 —
February 10, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
I read EFP and translated it as Extruded Fantasy Product. That didn’t make sense and then it did. Yes, I am sure people are using shaped charge weapons and maybe ginned up HEAT weaponry. But the Gordon piece dismisses any possibility that the Iraqis could be doing this themselves and so this must be Iranian.
Comment by LWM —
February 10, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
EFPs are simple WWII tech. Panzerfaust.
fabricated from commonly available water or oil pipe with the forward end closed by a concave metal disk known as the liner, of copper or steel to create a shaped charge. Explosive is loaded behind the metal liner to fill the pipe. Upon detonation, the explosive projects the liner to form a rod-like projectile at a velocity well over 1 km/s, depending on the design and type of explosive used.
Comment by LWM —
February 10, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
IOW,
Don’t tell me they were making nukes and other sophisticated WMDs and EFPs are beyond their ability to make. Or piss down my back and tell me it’s raining. You get my drift.
Comment by Jim Henley —
February 10, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
Andrew: Trying to explain myself better, one of the things an audit can establish is whether the Administration has properly coded all attacks in the first place as EFP or non.
Trackback by Dean's World —
February 10, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
Is Iran Making War On Our Soldiers in Iraq?…
Jim Henley of Unqualified Offers has proposed that Congress should investigate the Bush Administration’s claims that Iran is providing direct support of the……
Comment by Andrew Olmsted —
February 10, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
Jim,
I’m with you and I think you’re onto something here. I probably should have kept my mouth shut, as I don’t want to distract from the important question, which is what real evidence does the administration have that Iran is providing aid to our enemies in Iraq as opposed to other nations. And a close number two would be, if that’s the case, where’s the proof we’d be better off attacking Iran, which I think you already covered.
Comment by Jim Henley —
February 10, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
Dude, never think you should shut up around here. You’ve been an incredible sanity check for me over the years, as you well know.
Comment by Andrew Olmsted —
February 10, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
I think that’s my line, but thanks for the kind words nonetheless. My point was merely that my comment was really more in the vein of nitpicking; the relative damage of EFPs vs. other IEDs isn’t relevant to the question of what effect Iran is having on the fighting in Iraq.
As long as I’m on a tangent, though, I’ll note that EFPs have been a problem in Iraq for a very long time, so unless Iran has been providing them since almost the beginning of the insurgency, I think the administration has more work to do to prove their case.
Which is to say nothing of the question of, even assuming Iran is supplying the insurgency, what’s the best solution?
Comment by Mona —
February 10, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
Andrew: I’m certainly glad you speak up. I’m simply in no position to assess these sorts of issues from a military perspective, and you are. Tho I know you said you were speculating, your intuitions are better informed than those of many if not most, and when you wonder whether these EFPs might be coming from all of: Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, well, that gives me pause. Surely we aren’t going to go to war with all four of those nations — but if they all are engaged in supplying munitions to insurgents in Iraq, why this White House focus only on Iran?
That would be another question Congress could and should investigate.
Comment by rea —
February 10, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
Why on earth would Iran be supplying the insurgency? The US-installed government of Iraq is more pro-Iranian than any of the insurgent groups . . .
Trackback by Andrew Olmsted dot com —
February 10, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
Considering Consequences…
Let us imagine, for a moment, that it is summer 1944. Allied armies are rolling across France towards the Low Countries and the German border. Assume also that we are in charge of determining the Allied response to a surprise……
Comment by anne —
February 12, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
I agree with what you’ve said here — but with all the Bushie dismantling of the govt’s science auditing capability (see eg Union of Concerned Scientists page on this), does Congress have enough expertise at its disposal to effectively evaluate the claims?
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels —
February 13, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
Submitted for Your Approval…
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council li…
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels —
February 16, 2007 @ 2:22 am
The Council Has Spoken!…
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are San Francisco Has Bigger Scandals …
Trackback by The COLOSSUS OF RHODEY —
February 17, 2007 @ 10:21 am
Watcher’s Council results…
And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are San Francisco Has Bigger Scandals Than a Debauched Mayor by Bookworm Room, and Flagrant Evil by Gates of Vienna. All members, please be sure to link……
Trackback by Rhymes With Right —
February 17, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
Watcher’s Council Results…
The winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are San Francisco Has Bigger Scandals Than a Debauched Mayor by Bookworm Room, and Flagrant Evil by Gates of Vienna. Here is where you can find the full results……
Trackback by Radio Left —
February 19, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
Congressional oversight on Iran…
AMERICAblog: A great nation deserves the truth
Several commenters and emails asked me, in response to the ongoing Iran discussion, What can be done? I was doing some research to address the question when, as often happens, I stumbled across a piece t…