To continue:
Shiite motivations: I still find your comments hard to accept because I cannot see any motivation for Shiites as a loose group to transfer weaponry to Iran. Given their mutual hostility, lack of capability to locate, obtain, and transport those materials, and the sheer lack of justification for action, I find your argument to be not as plausible. Let me unpack the last point. I am unaware of any reason for Shiites pre-2003 to feel animosity towards the U.S. or think that Iran would somehow give them a better deal, whatever that might be. You’ll have to supply some concrete evidence to support that critical contention. Given the insecurity of the run-up to war, the various Shiite factions should and did work more closely with the U.S., not against it. Consequently, you’re going to need some substantiation of your points that directly shows why trade with Iran (to which most Shiites are hostile) is more appealing than political control following an invasion.
Moreover, you point to 1991 as a sign of a transfer of weaponry between Iraq and Iran, and that that point should give credence to some collusion between the two. Again, though, the circumstances were entirely different, and Saddam had those planes go there because it was the only option available, limited as it was. It wasn’t a transfer and it wasn’t a deal: it was a desparate gamble. This points to exactly the opposite conclusion that you want to make. Hussein would be less inclined to send material to a country where previous equipment was stolen. As I also mentioned, there has been no rapprochement between Iran and Iraq, and therefore no cause for thinking that 20 years of animosity have evaporated.
In addition, Saddam thought of nuclear weapons as his final crutch against other regimes, and chief among them was Iran. He is highly unlikely to transfer exactly that technology to Iran. In addition, Iran wouldn’t necessarily be able to integrate that technology in a manner that would allow a quick turnaround (and hence the current belligerence). They do not have the factories scaled to that kind of missile technology, and they are still acquiring the equipment to conduct some of the enrichment process. The recent belligerence has much more to do with Ahmadinejad trying to bolster his power internally, particularly after a contentious election and what he feels is a slide into immorality (i.e. liberalizing reforms).
For these reasons, Syria is a much more plausible destination, if weapons even went there. Think: the Israelis, who have the most to lose from an nuclearized Iran, even they don’t claim it went in that direction. You’re talking about two US divisions patrolling an enormous area, and you haven’t responded to my statement about a possible transfer before the invasion. Turkey is definitely out, and Jordan is highly unlikely. Syria shares political and foreign policy orientation, similar internal problems, and a history of positive relations (with some fits and starts of course). It does not have a history of war or theft with Iraq, and has oftentimes allied with Iraq in some critical wars. Two units are simply not enough to patrol that border, as U.S. troops are realizing now. Consequently, while I think your idea is interesting, I find the Syria dimension to be significantly more plausible. And from what I have heard informally in the intelligence community, they tend to hold with this assessment as well.
As for Falk’s point, it is not so much the argument that has me riled, but the way it is presented. There is no need for polemics in this debate. There is no need to ridicule another poster or use language that implies they have not thought through issues carefully enough. As I’ve said, the points made here have been plausible, but not enough. I believe there is a way to have a respectful disagreement that does not attack the other person. However, it is difficult when posters on all sides take the absolutist, derogatory stance to have that kind of conversation. For example,
The problem is not with us “right wingers” so much as it is with your “left wingers” being unable to make your points in a persuasive manner. Perhaps if you were more eloquent in your dialogues you would be able to convert us to your opinions much like missionaries do when converting “heathens” to their religions.
This, I think, has it wrong. It’s not the speaker’s fault if he can’t convince. Likewise it’s not the listeners fault if he can’t accept. It’s a dialogue, and it involves both sides. As a result, this
Not that I’m saying you are wrong, F_alk (or anyone else who is devoutly entrentched on one side of the discussion or the other) but rather that perhaps you should consider if you are wrong, and if you decide you are not, then figure out why you are right and then think of a diplomatic way of telling those who you think are wrong how they are wrong.
has it much better. It’s the lack of respect and discipline in thinking and argumentation that has me riled, and I will let my posts speak for themselves in terms of who in this debate has the balance of civility.