Iran would not arm the Taliban in Afghanistan

The Taliban represent everything that Iran is against. So weapons being used in Afghanistan and Iraq that have Iranian sources come from Iran's support of the Northern Alliance (remember them?).

Yet the Bush administration still wants to tie the two together for reasons all their own: (my bold)

Gates was categorical about Iranian government involvement. He then proceeded to discuss the Iranian government's Afghan policy. Gates said, "We don't know at what level this has been approved by the Iranian government or in the Iranian government. We don't know the magnitude of the assistance. It's obviously troubling and worrisome that the Iranians may be deciding to counter the efforts of some 42 nations in Afghanistan to establish a strong democratic state. So we'll watch it very closely."

Evidently, Gates went overboard by inviting the US's allies and friends to join in his condemnation of Tehran. Indeed, it strains credulity that the Iranian government has taken a virtual u-turn in its policy toward the Taliban. Iran is a big player in Afghanistan. It has thoughtfully exploited any new opportunities in the past five years to spread its influence and ideas within Afghanistan. Iran has pursued a nuanced strategy where various elements and policy instruments have been brought into almost optimal interplay - reconstruction, education, propaganda, good-neighborliness, trade, investment, economic interdependence and religion and ethnicity.

[snip]

Tehran understands that despite the talk of a "diplomatic solution", Bush is ratcheting up tensions. Given the Democratic Party's close links with the Israeli lobby, it endorses Vice President Dick Cheney's line that "all options are on the table" when it comes to making Iran bend. In such a dangerous scenario, Tehran will not act impetuously. Persians do not behave like Texan cowboys - "my-enemy's-enemy-is-my-friend". It is illogical that Iran would open a new front in Afghanistan, either.

Besides, Iran estimates carefully that any link-up with the Taliban (and al-Qaeda), howsoever tactical, could have unforeseen long-term consequences. Also, Iranians have a fairly accurate assessment of the complexities of the US's dealings with the Taliban. Iranians have all long suspected that there is a convergence of interests between the US, Britain and Pakistan to keep the Afghan war going at a certain level of intensity as a justification for perpetuating the Western military presence in the region.

Without doubt, Tehran realizes that continued American occupation of Afghanistan is irreconcilable with its vital interests and core concerns. But, at the same time, Afghanistan's long-term stability is of utmost concern to Tehran. Thus, the Iranian reaction to the US support for terrorism will be measured and proportionate. The Iranians know that the Afghan war is largely a war dominated by spin.

Remember these names when you vote

Americablog:
Final tally: 56-34, GOP fillibuster stands:
Voting to permit debate about Bush's "surge" plan"
- Snowe (R-ME)
- Specter (R-PA)
- Warner (R-VA)
- Collins (R-ME)
- Hagel (R-NE)
- Coleman (R-MN)
- Smith (R-OR)

Voting to filibuster and stop the debate.
- Lieberman (I-CT)

Not voting: Nine Republicans and one Democrat, Tim Johnson (who is in the hospital):
- Bennett (R-UT)
- Bond (R-MO)
- Cochran (R-MS)
- Corker (R-TN)
- Ensign (R-NV)
- Hatch (R-UT)
- Johnson (D-SD)
- Kyl (R-AZ)
- McCain (R-AZ)
- Murksowksi (R-AK)

Oops, sorry about that, Kurds!

We seem to have really dumb people controlling where our smart bombs fall:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. helicopters on Friday mistakenly killed at least five Kurdish troops, a group that Washington hopes to enlist as a partner to help secure Iraq, U.S. and Iraqi officials said.

The Kurdish deaths occurred about midnight in eastern Mosul, 225 miles northwest of Baghdad. The U.S. military said the airstrike was targeting al-Qaida fighters, but later issued an apology, saying the five men killed had been identified as Kurdish police.

The U.S. military said the attack was launched after ground forces identified armed men in a bunker near a building they thought was being used to make bombs. The troops called for the men to put down their weapons in Arabic and Kurdish and fired warning shots before helicopters fired at the bunker, the military said.

Mahmoud Othman, a prominent Kurdish lawmaker who is not a PUK member but has strong ties to the community, said that for U.S. troops, the incident amounted to "attacking the people who support them.

Reminds me of the friendly fire incident involving the British where the complaint was the U.S. pilots were acting like 'cowboys':

An official British inquiry into the friendly fire disaster in Iraq which killed Lance Corporal Matty Hull of the Household Cavalry contains scathing criticism of the actions of the American pilots and ground crew involved, it emerged yesterday.

As the US pilot who attacked the convoy shortly after the invasion of Iraq nearly four years ago was named for the first time, it became clear that the conclusions of the British board of inquiry were very different from the official investigation carried out by the US military authorities.

And that incident in Somalia...

And more recently in Najaf...

And an interesting article about allowing our pilots to use speed.

Update: Make that eight Kurds.

Take this with you when you vote

Via The Vanity Press:
Kos has the list of Republicans who are up for re-election in 2008 who voted against debate:

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Larry Craig (R-ID)
Elizabeth Dole (R-NC)
Pete Domenici (R-NM)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Ted Stevens (R-AK)
John Sununu (R-NH)
John Warner (R-VA)

We are taking notes, taking names

And promising not to forget.

Congressional votes on Iraq have long political shelf lives.

Just ask the Democrats who supported the war authorization more than four years ago and have been dogged by their decisions ever since. It’s a good lesson for those deciding how to proceed this week on a series of Iraq resolutions, and not just Democrats or those with presidential ambitions.

Next year, 21 Republican senators face re-election, and their political futures could be deeply entwined with the Iraq debate.