U.S. Forces Fighting Iranians In Iraq

Former Assistant Secretary Of State: New Efforts Against Iran Significantly Raise Stakes

(CBS/AP)  As President Bush tries to sell his new Iraq policy, his administration is keeping an eye on another threat — Iran, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin.

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.

"Twice in the last two or three weeks, in pursuit of those networks, when we have gone and captured those cells, we've captured Iranians," said Gen. Peter Pace.

According to U.S. military figures, 198 American and British soldiers have been killed, and more than 600 wounded by advanced explosive devices manufactured in Iran and smuggled in through the southern marshes and along the Tigris River. Attempts to disrupt these networks, combined with the decision to send a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf as a warning to Iran, significantly raises the stakes, according to former Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk.

"It's going to have, you would expect, some rather serious consequences," he said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates tried to assure the Senate Armed Services Committee the U.S. military will not widen the war into Iran.

"We believe that we can interrupt these networks that are providing support through actions inside the territory of Iraq and there is no need to attack targets in Iran itself," he said.

But with the future of oil-rich Iraq at stake, the revolutionary leaders of Iran are not likely to back down.

"Since the president has taken the gloves off, I would expect that they would respond by taking the gloves off, too," Indyk says.

Pentagon sources tell CBS News the U.S. military has planned covert cross-border raids into Iran — but so far none has been approved.

Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain defended President Bush's Iraq plan on Friday as a difficult but necessary move, parting company with lawmakers fiercely resisting the military build up.

"I believe that together these moves will give the Iraqis and Americans the best chance of success," said McCain, R-Ariz., a leading presidential contender for 2008.

McCain also took a shot at Democrats who say the U.S. must bring home some troops within four to six months.

"I believe these individuals ... have a responsibility to tell us what they believe are the consequences of withdrawal in Iraq," he said. "If we walk away from Iraq, we'll be back, possibly in the context of a wider war in the world's most volatile region."

McCain spoke at the Senate Armed Services Committee, where Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spent a second day on Capitol Hill defending the president's strategy.

As they did, Democrats continued considering strategies for challenging Mr. Bush's war policies. One influential lawmaker, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said he'd like to require closing the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and better training for troops heading to the war zone as conditions of Congress providing more money for Iraq.

"We have to close the prison at Guantanamo," said Murtha, who heads the House panel that controls the Pentagon's budget. He said Democrats would decide later whether to pursue the idea.

The Bush administration has said military the detention center is still needed. It holds almost 400 detainees suspected of links to al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Gates and Pace on Friday assured lawmakers there were no immediate plans to attack targets in Iran. In his speech this week on Iraq, Mr. Bush vowed to disrupt Iran's aid to insurgents in Iraq and "destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

---

CBS News Poll On Bush Speech
'08 Contenders Weigh In
Key Elements Of Bush Plan
Speech Excerpts
Congressional Response
World Reaction

---

Mr. Bush's comments refer "strictly to operations inside the territory of Iraq, not crossing the border," Gates said, later adding that "any kind of military action inside Iran itself, that would be a very last resort."

Despite pointed questions from Democrats, the testimony of the two top officials drew considerably less consternation than Thursday's testimony from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., told Rice that he feared Mr. Bush's plan would be the worst foreign policy blunder since the Vietnam War.

On the Senate Armed Services Committee are several staunch Bush supporters, including John Cornyn of Texas, Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia. In addition to McCain, committee members Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., support sending more troops to Iraq.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the panel's new chairman, said deepening America's commitment in Iraq would be a grave mistake. Mr. Bush wants to add 21,500 more U.S. troops to the 132,000 already there.

"Increasing the number of U.S. forces in Iraq is flawed strategy because it is based on a flawed premise that there is a military solution to the violence and instability in Iraq, when what is needed is a political solution among the Iraqi leaders and factions," Levin said.

Repeating an admission that the president made in his nationally televised address on Wednesday, Gates told the senators, "Mistakes certainly have been made by the United States in Iraq. However we got to this moment, the stakes now are incalculable."

Mr. Bush on Friday sought support for his new Iraq military buildup in telephone calls to Jordan's King Abdullah II and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Late Thursday, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, warned against sending more troops for long. The group had called for withdrawal of U.S. combat troops by early 2008, but said that a temporary troop increase might be justified under some circumstances.

"We are encouraged by the president's statement that 'America's commitment is not open-ended' and Secretary Gates' statement that the addition of 21,000 troops would be viewed as a temporary surge," Baker and Hamilton said in a statement. "The violence in Baghdad will not end without national reconciliation."

Republican Sens. John Warner and Susan Collins said Friday they were gravely concerned about the fate of Iraq. Collins, R-Maine, asked Gates and Pace why the administration thinks the plan will work when past attempts have failed.

Warner said the goal must be to keep Iraq from imploding and being "scattered to the winds" in the region.

"I don't call it victory. I don't call it a win," said Warner, R-Va. "But to enable this government and its people to continue to seek their own level of democracy and freedom."

On Thursday, Gates announced that he was requesting an increase in the size of the Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 troops over the next five years.

He also said the Pentagon would recall to duty sooner than planned some National Guard and Reserve troops who have served yearlong tours in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[randalds]

They haven't supported us in anything since WW2, where we saved them: they never thanked us.

Posted by jdweymouth at 04:36 AM : Jan 15, 2007

Oh and as for "saving them" that's a crock of sh*it as anyone who has actually studied history would know. The success of D-Day was directly because of the bravery of the French resistance movement and it would have flopped without them. As for never thanking us for the help, that's a bald-faced lie. Lastly no one "saved" anyone during WWII. We all banded together against a common enemy in a noble war against Hitler. Someday soon the rest of the civilized world may do the same against Bush and I'll be right on their side.

[randalds]

Yes, there is. The answer is yes. I can't believe you said that. That is treasonous, and don't give me the "Even though I don't support the president or the war, I'm a patriot" ***, you're anything but a patriot.

France is not our ally. France helped in the revolution, but it was for a personal grudge against England. The monarchy helped us, but the monarchy no longer exists. We were in a quasi-naval war with France 17 years after the end of the revolution. We would have won anyway, but it would have taken an extra few years. The truth is, the French, during the monarchy, didn't want us to expand, and when they sold us Louisiana, it was so England wouldn't get it. The British gave us much of the eastern U.S. that we know today in the Peace of Paris. We are certainly no longer allies; they left NATO as soon as they didn't like the rules, a move they would have criticized us for doing, and rejoined when it was convenient. They haven't supported us in anything since WW2, where we saved them: they never thanked us.
Posted by jdweymouth at 04:36 AM : Jan 15, 2007

As I said, there is no intelligent answer to that question, so I'm not surprised you think otherwise. As for being treasonous to think otherwise, kiss my Vietnam veteran as*s. And the only reason you dislike the French is that they were one of the few Western nations too smart to join Bush in this insanity. Turns out they were right.

[skyk-2009]

It's absolutely terrible to see the number of people who still buy into all the LIES. LIES that have been proven over and over again to be just that. Iraq had NOTHING to do with the Attack on this nation, we have the person that WAS involved and we have the Nation in which he resides. WE KNOW WERE HE IS. Isn't it about time we went about the business of stablizing the Country that harbored him? Isn't it about time we got back to finding and bringing to just the one's who ACTUALLY attacked this nation. We the People have had enough LIES and enough of Bush's OIL War.

[jdweymouth]

We need to enlarge our military, consolidate our allies, our "fake" allies we need to cut loose, and we need to take absolute sides in the mid east. Since Israel is our only true ally there, we should take their side. Otherwise, I don't much care about mid east opinion. If we weren't so nice, we could have taken their oil. The deal we should make is: you give us oil, we let you live, you don't sponsor terrorists, and we let you live. We have power; we should use it for the benefit of the country, its interests, its allies, and its people. Last, but not least, we should exile traitors who think "Do you want your country to win the war?" is a complicated question.

[jdweymouth]

This is the same thing as asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet, answer yes or no". There is no intelligent yes or no answer to this question."-Posted by RandalDS

Yes, there is. The answer is yes. I can't believe you said that. That is treasonous, and don't give me the "Even though I don't support the president or the war, I'm a patriot" ***, you're anything but a patriot.

France is not our ally. France helped in the revolution, but it was for a personal grudge against England. The monarchy helped us, but the monarchy no longer exists. We were in a quasi-naval war with France 17 years after the end of the revolution. We would have won anyway, but it would have taken an extra few years. The truth is, the French, during the monarchy, didn't want us to expand, and when they sold us Louisiana, it was so England wouldn't get it. The British gave us much of the eastern U.S. that we know today in the Peace of Paris. We are certainly no longer allies; they left NATO as soon as they didn't like the rules, a move they would have criticized us for doing, and rejoined when it was convenient. They haven't supported us in anything since WW2, where we saved them: they never thanked us.

[randalds]

They are traditional enemies, but with the "big bully United States" ganging up on them, and establishing some common ground, they'd be more dangerous than Iran can hope to be alone.
Posted by jdweymouth at 01:32 AM : Jan 15, 2007

And this administration has been more successful then any other in uniting old enemies against us, precisely with our bullying tactics. In the Middle-East we have brought the vast majority of the hate upon ourselves through our actions.

[randalds]

Iran has repeatedly called for our own and our ally's (Israel) destruction, that makes them an enemy. We are, therefore, justified in massing troops on their border and intimidating them into fear so they won't try and carry out their fantasy. Just imagine if Iraq was still around developing nukes, with the help of France and Russia, while Iran is doing it. They are traditional enemies, but with the "big bully United States" ganging up on them, and establishing some common ground, they'd be more dangerous than Iran can hope to be alone.
Posted by jdweymouth at 01:32 AM : Jan 15, 2007

Iraq did call for our destruction, but didn't pose a credible threat to us, so that means we had no right to invade based on that. The same with Iran. Yes Iran's president has called for Israel's destruction and if Israel doesn't do more to settle the Palestinian issue I would to. Israel is our ally, but not our ally right or wrong. They are wrong on the Palestinian question and we should be demanding they change ourselves. Besides threatening them is not an act of war, it's an act of politics. If we went to war with whoever calls us bad names we'd be in a constant state of war forever.

[randalds]

You're country is at war, don't you want us to win?-answer this question.

Posted by jdweymouth at 01:32 AM : Jan 15, 2007

This is the same thing as asking "Have you stopped beating your wife yet, answer yes or no". There is no intelligent yes or no answer to this question. I want my country out of this illegal and destructive war that never should have been started in the first place and is unwinnable in any case. Then I want Bush and Cheney's as*ses hauled in front of a Nuremberg type tribunal to answer for their war crimes, just like we did to the Nazi's. The rest of the world deserves no less.

[randalds]

The vote was not to be used as a last resort, it was a declaration of war, not called that at the time, and congress did not oppose the war even on the eve of invasion because democrat and republican senators alike went on the air assuring the Iraqis: this was against Hussein, not them. It was a declaration of war, and even now, though they say circumstances have changed, they don't deny it was a declaration of war.

Posted by jdweymouth at 01:21 AM : Jan 15, 2007

The French have been our allies since before the founding of the US and in fact there wouldn't even have been a US without their support in the first place. The revolution itself would have been lost without them and their support in money and lives.

And yes most of the Senators who signed it, even many republican ones, deny that it was ever a formal declaration of war. A formal declaration of war says that a state of war exists between us and another nation and it lists the reasons why. This authorization doesnt even come close. the authorization itself says that force is to be used as a last resort and only if Saddam didn't allow UN weapons inspectors back in. He did and Bush went to war anyway. You can reap eat the lie and tap dance around it all you want, but a formal declaration of war calls itself that in no uncertain terms. This is not one.

[jdweymouth]

There is no such thing as an illegal war. That's what war is all about: the means of one government enforcing its interests over the interests of another. War is supposed to be dreadful and terrible, therefore making it a thing to be avoided, uless it is needed: it was needed, and we're pursuing it for all we're worth. That is why rules of war should be nonexistent You're country is at war, don't you want us to win?-answer this question.

Iran has repeatedly called for our own and our ally's (Israel) destruction, that makes them an enemy. We are, therefore, justified in massing troops on their border and intimidating them into fear so they won't try and carry out their fantasy. Just imagine if Iraq was still around developing nukes, with the help of France and Russia, while Iran is doing it. They are traditional enemies, but with the "big bully United States" ganging up on them, and establishing some common ground, they'd be more dangerous than Iran can hope to be alone.

[randalds]

Hussein refused to let the weapons inspectors check certain places, while we found, if you remember, evidence of weapons development buried in a rose garden. We also found a mobile lab, and in Jordan (near the border) there was enough poison gas found to destroy three cities. What kind of evidence do you need? It is amazing how quickly we forget.
Posted by jdweymouth at 01:21 AM : Jan 15, 2007

The buried "evidence" was more then 20 year old documents, hardly an active program. The "mobile lab" turned out to be a helium truck used for weather balloons and even the Bush people admit that. And the only "gas" found was in some old artillery shells and it had degraded to the point of uselessness. How quickly we forget? More like how quickly we make sh*it up.

[jdweymouth]

RandalDS: First of all, the French Intelligence that you mentioned was untrustworthy, because they had scientists in Iraq helping them. France is not our ally. All other intel was debatable because they differed on certain details, while our intelligence said there was weapons indeed weapons in Iraq.

The vote was not to be used as a last resort, it was a declaration of war, not called that at the time, and congress did not oppose the war even on the eve of invasion because democrat and republican senators alike went on the air assuring the Iraqis: this was against Hussein, not them. It was a declaration of war, and even now, though they say circumstances have changed, they don't deny it was a declaration of war.

Hussein refused to let the weapons inspectors check certain places, while we found, if you remember, evidence of weapons development buried in a rose garden. We also found a mobile lab, and in Jordan (near the border) there was enough poison gas found to destroy three cities. What kind of evidence do you need? It is amazing how quickly we forget.

[randalds]

What do you think an "authorization of a use of force is? War maybe.... Yes, I think so.
Posted by jdweymouth at 12:34 AM : Jan 15, 2007

The use of force authorization was authorization by Congress for the president to use force, strictly as a last resort, to force Saddam Hussein to submit to UN weapons inspectors. And in fact Hussein did agree to allow the weapons inspectors back, but Bush went ahead with the war anyway. Bush did not follow the conditions in the declaration by not waiting to use force as a last resort and this is therefore an illegal war. It was not and in no way can be considered a formal declaration of war.

[randalds]

RandalDS:

Yes, it was declared in congress, as a matter of fact; Hillar, Edwards, Kerry, and many other democrats voted for war.
Posted by jdweymouth at 12:32 AM : Jan 15, 2007

It was not a formal declaration of war and it won't magically become one no matter how many times you say it. It simply was not.

[jdweymouth]

Addendum-I pushed %u201Cpublish%u201D on accident.

What do you think an "authorization of a use of force is? War maybe.... Yes, I think so.

[jdweymouth]

RandalDS:

Yes, it was declared in congress, as a matter of fact; Hillar, Edwards, Kerry, and many other democrats voted for war.

[randalds]

we are not prepared, why all these mistakes
from our President Bush??

Posted by usacitizen at 12:02 AM : Jan 15, 2007

Because in his mind it's not a mistake to place our troops on the border with Iran because he is hoping for an attack on them. It's the same reason he's sending another Navel carrier group to sail into Iranian waters. He is hoping to provoke an attack on them. Bush doesn't care if our troops die in the process. To him they are expendable resources, not real human beings. He wants a war with Iran, in spite of the fact that we're stretched so thin now we couldn't win a war against Italy right now. he is getting to be more like Hitler in the last days. Moving around troops and power that no longer exists because he already wasted it all.

[usacitizen-2009]

My opinion is that Iran is more our enemey and why are we not going after Iran if they are supplying Irag is who we need to worry about now and for the most part

Iran is our enemy who we need to focus on bring us down with Iraq

Iran support Iraq 100 percent I'm sure of it now after hearing the news the weapons are coming in from Iran that who we need to go after now forget Iraq now we already assassinated Iraq leader now go after Iran

call for a draft because we will need it the troops will not be able to handle to countires so close together, we will be traped if we are not prepared for a civil war mass war th worst ever if not pulled out is my opionion

[usacitizen-2009]

My opinion is that Iran is more our enemey and why are we not going after Iran if they are supplying Irag is who we need to worry about now and for the most part
And for the sake of our troops if they go near Iran who know what can happen next

we are not prepared, why all these mistakes
from our President Bush??

[randalds]

It was and is an illegal war because it was not declared by the Congress. As I have said the authorization for use of force is not a legal declaration of war. It just isn't.

As for evidence I'm basing his guilt on what has leaked out so far and which will turn into a flood once the Senate investigations take part and the rats all start turning on each other to save their own as*s. I'm also basing it on the denials of intelligence agencies in the UK, Italy, Spain and France, all of whom at one time or another Bush claims to have come to the conclusion that Saddam had WMD's when everyone of those agencies has said that, at most, their conclusion was that he might still have some old chemical weapons left, maybe, but nothing more and that their reports to the CIA and White House said as much. Bush knew Saddam did not have WMD's, but he sure prayed that he did. Besides Bush was determined to go to war with Iraq and would have used any lie to accomplish that. He is just as determined to go to war with Iran nd will use any provokation for that too. He is mad.