Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Macking MeK

Mac'ing!

For the unhiply helpless (it's true - there are bunches to go 'round - just check the commentary here sometime - shocking...) to mack or macking is a term au courant from the military term to Make A Connection (all's fair in love and war, nicht wahr) as in courting game (a measure of smoooothness).

As best understood, the, uh, ends, justifies the means in guy world's eternal quest for the laffy taffy.

Could macking be macked up in the realm of the the diplopolititary?

Heck yeah!

Hooking up and handling a new clear Preacher Command is a problem from Hello

"There simply is no school solution, Courtney. The current regime in Tehran is determined to resist all foreign pressure to acquie these weapons and, when it has done so, may revert to an aggressive, anti - status quo foreign policy that would destabilize the ME and threaten the vital interests of Great Satan and her allies"

There is some reason (not very much or very convincing) that a more 'moderate'  - at least by the kinda semi sorta crazy enemy revolutionary standards - posse of mullah lovers might maybe be a little more agreeable to deal with - yet even the 'moderates' are murderously intolerant and seem to dis with the estabbed regime only in the olde style over substance debate. 

Indeed l'courant Vilayat-e Faqih enjoys it's most best leg of support on hating Great Satan, everything she stands for, fun of anykind, free choice or any allies in weapons range.

Brand new DefSec Uncle Leon on his recent Tour admitted Iran has been waging an asymmetrical war against Great Satan in the Land a'twixt the 2 Rivers.  

“We’re seeing more of those weapons going in to Iraq from Iran, and they’ve really hurt us.”

Admiral Mike, (who has yet to return correspondence about why cause Mookie is still breathing - it's cool - the Admiral is a bizzy cat after all) points to the bloody dripping bloodstained hands of Preacher Command 

“Iran is very directly supporting extremist Shiite groups, which are killing our troops.”

Deux choix!

1st posse looks at Persia as irrefutably irredeemable and advocates an admittedly provocative policy of confrontation, hounding and confounding - even force; diplomacy, sanctions, stuxnettin' or even threats of military strikes have zero game in macking the mullahs to fore go new clear chicanery chance. After all - to change the nature of a regime - one must actually change the regime. Like in military force to preclude an unfun, unfree intolerantly murderous players from hooking up all those missilicious rockets with a nasty surprise.

The 2nd bunch - currently at the highest levels of Great Satan's diplopolititary machine are sadly the corrupt stability cultist fakebelievers in non profit jawflapping, engagement and happy talk 'bout shared interests - as if time traveling girl haters - could actually respond to diplomatic soirees and outreaching overtures from their most hated enemy.

 Aside from xforming the Persian IED factory complex into a smoking crater (and perhaps some collateral damage that kills off it's valuable trained workforce ala Schweinfurt/Regensburg) there are ways Great Satan could get all proxilicious and continue crafting her asymmetrical warcraft into an artform.

See, as the grand old dame of terrorist lover illegit regimes, Iran funnily enough has been victim to terrorism too. And perhaps the biggest thorn in the britches of Mullahopolis is a m"Hammedist/Marxist anti 'guardianship of the pure jurist" M'J!had' een EEE Kalq gang.  

The Bolshevikish sounding "Ppl's M'Jihad'een Org of Iran" or MeK as nom d'guerr'd amongst the intelligentsia, got all crunk up back in the last millennium under the Shah and suffered greatly as infidelish unbelievers under the crazy Revolutionary revolution that torments Persia unto this day.

No joke - they enjoying hooking up Marxist philosophy and a kinda free wheelin' m"Hammedism and don't mind hijinkery terrorist activities (page 115 on the pdf)- including killing Americans back in the 70's.

In April 1999, MeK zeroed in on key Iranian military cats and in a prett sweet hit (just saying) assassinated Dep Chief of the Iranian Armed Forces General Staff, Brigadier General Ali Sayyaad Shirazi.

"...In April 2000, the MeK attempted to assassinate the commander of the Nasr Headquarters, Tehran's interagency board responsible for coordinating policies on Iraq. The pace of anti-Iranian operations increased during "Operation Great Batman" in February 2000, when the group launched a dozen attacks against Iran. One attack included a mortar attack against a major Iranian leadership complex in Tehran that housed the offices of the Supreme Leader and the President. In 2000 and 2001, the MEK was involved in regular mortar attacks and hit-and-run raids against Iranian military and law enforcement personnel, as well as government buildings near the Iran-Iraq border.

"...Also in 2001, the FBI arrested seven Iranians in the United States who funneled $400,000 to an MEK-affiliated organization in the UAE, which used the funds to purchase weapons. Following an initial Coalition bombardment of the MEK's facilities in Iraq at the outset of Operation Iraqi Freedom, MEK leadership negotiated a cease-fire with Coalition Forces and voluntarily surrendered their heavy-arms to Coalition control. Since 2003, roughly 3,400 MEK members have been encamped at Ashraf in Iraq, under the protection of Coalition Forces.

To be fair - it wasn't the M'Ssad, CIA or MI6 that stripped off Iran's veneer of new clear stuff for peaceful purposes chiz.


It was MeK.

Giving up them hot deets and big phased cookies revealing Persia sensitive tender portioned prolifigacy for new clear weaponry manufacture.

So, should Great Satan mack with Mek in an enemy of my enemy is otay meme?



A main battleground in this dispute is the question of whether or not the most prominent Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MeK), should remain on the U.S. government’s terrorism list. The tough camp generally views the MeK, founded in 1965, as a lever against the mullahs and (with a minority dissenting) wants it delisted. The diplomatic camp argues that delisting would anger the Iranian leaders, hampering efforts to improve relations, or (contradictorily) would limit Washington’s ability to reach out to the Iranian street.

The pro-MeK side argues that the MeK has a history of cooperating with Washington, providing valuable intelligence on Iranian nuclear plans and tactical intelligence about Iranian efforts in Iraq. Further, just as the MeK’s organizational and leadership skills helped bring down the shah in 1979, these skills can again facilitate regime change. The number of street protestors arrested for association with the MeK points to its role in demonstrations, as do slogans echoing MeK chants, e.g., calling Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei a “henchman,” Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a “dictator,” and shouting “down with the principle of Velayat-e Faqih” (that a religious figure heads the government).

A number of fomer high-level American officials advocate delisting the MeK, including a national-security adviser (James Jones), three chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Hugh Shelton, Richard Myers, Peter Pace), a secretary of Homeland Security (Tom Ridge), an attorney general (Michael Mukasey), and even a State Department coordinator for counterterrorism (Dell Dailey). A chorus of prominent Republicans and Democrats favor delisting, including a bipartisan group of 80 members of Congress.

The anti-MeK faction does not address the benefits of delisting but argues that the U.S. government must continue the listing on the basis of allegations of terrorism. Their indictment notes that the MeK killed six Americans in the 1970s. Whether or not these allegations are accurate, a terrorist incident must have occurred within two years to continue with the terrorist-group designation — rendering discussion of the 1970s completely irrelevant.

What about the past two years? The pro-MeK side points to three main U.S. terrorist databases — the RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents (RDWTI), the Global Terrorism Database (GTD), and the Worldwide Incidents Tracking System (WITS) — and notes that in each one the MeK comes up clean since 2006 or earlier.

What about capabilities and intentions? The State Department’s 2006 “Country Reports on Terrorism” accused the MeK of maintaining “capacity and will” for terrorist acts but the 2007, 2008, and 2009 reports omitted this statement. Britain’s Court of Appeal derided proscription of the MeK as “perverse,” and the group was removed from the U.K. terrorist list in 2008. The European Union cleared the group of terrorism charges in 2009. The French judiciary dismissed all terrorism-related allegations against the group in May 2011.

In brief, the argument to maintain the MeK’s terrorist designation is baseless.

Following a court-mandated review of the MeK’s terrorist designation, the secretary of state must soon decide whether to maintain this listing. With one simple signature, 44's admin can help empower Iranians to seize control over their destiny — and perhaps end the mullahs’ mad nuclear dash.

Pic - "Machination"

2 comments:

Schenck said...

I understand the temptation to work with MeK on this, but lets keep things in perspective.
We did this sort of stuff back in the Cold War. That was when the enemy was the Soviet Union, who had agents around the world commited to advancing their 'constitutional' principle of world-wide revolt and empire. We've often heard the motto 'we fight small wars to prevent big ones', but back then, we fought the Vietnam and Korean Wars to prevent Global Thermonuclear War. That was what was at risk, and despite the blood, guts, torture, and terror and horror of the secret wars and dissapearances of those time, backing murderous, evil thugs like Pinochet and morons like the Shah, we prevented global Soviet takeover. The Iranians and others love to talk about 'new colonialism', but the 'empire' there means Western cultural influence in non-western cultures (music, movies, daisy-duke shorts, free-thinking lesbians) AND the asymmetry of global capitalism (our companies have rocked for a century, so they're hard to compete with). Soviet Imperium would've mean ACTUAL EMPIRE, razing mosques synagoges and churches, executing cities, and slave-labour.
So was Pinochet a monster, is South America completely fucked up now because of what we did? Does the Islamic Republic suck? Did the TWO Iraq wars suck? Is the torturing-to-death of CHILDREN in Syria as the (Baathist) regime ensures regime survival a horrific nightmare? Absolutely. And its our fault, and its better than a uni-polar Soviet World, by a long-fucking-shot.

Is the Islamic Republic the Soviet Union? No. Should we be doing anything other than putting bullets in the heads of MeKers encamped at Ashraf, probably not.

Whats the MOST MeK could do for us? ADD to the organizational ability of the Green Movement and sabotage /some/ projects in Iran. In the event of an all out war, are they going to be able to do for US what Iranian proxies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine-abad-alam-astan do for them? No.

Paradrop a group of Green Berets in the middle of the country and you'll get more out of it than supporting MeK. We GOT the Islamic Republic as blowback for the Great Anti-Soviet Project, we do NOT need to resort to the same tactics for what is, under reasoned consideration, probably only a REGIONAL enemy. ESPECIALLY when the proxies are unpopular, marxist, islamist, terrorists. THe Iranians are a LOT better at propaganda than us, they ALREADY crushed the Green revolt by saying that MeK was involved, and now we want to actually make them a proxy?

Also, anyone notice the Irony of using Marxists to take down the 'fallout' of our Super-War against the Marxists? Will we be siding with Salafists and Taliban in the War against the Martians?

Um, yeah, and Operation Great Batman? OK, that's awesome, they get credit for that at least.

Julian said...

Contrary to the popular adage, the enemy of my enemy often turns out to be an even bigger and more annoying enemy in the long run.