While Iraqi citizens went to the polls in an election that has been marred by US meddling and extensive violence which is already being used by Odierno to suggest a new rationale for staying in Iraq, VoteVets’ launched a new ad campaign that revives a false Iraq war claim from 2007 to get our attention.
VoteVets is running this ad as part of Operation Free which, according to the website, is “paid for by the Truman National Security Project.” Truman describes itself as a “national security leadership institute… to to create an influential force of leaders across the country who advance strong progressive national security policy.” It’s led by such progressive (sic) luminaries as Madeleine K. Albright, Leslie H. Gelb and John D. Podesta. It’s unclear whether all the money for the campaign came from this source and VoteVets has not so far been willing to disclose their funding for this project which certainly sounds like some neocons had a hand in the planning.
The ad campaign, including a banner which has run on our site, claims that ”Iranian bombs are killing Americans”. The TV version which is running in multiple states dramatically portrays the impact of an EFP and repeats the claim that these are Iranian supplied weapons. The ad goes on to encourage support of the current climate change bill. Certainly the linkage of American oil dependence to national security is an argument all of us who abhor “wars for oil” can support but in this case the good message is completely lost in “war porn” images and false accusations.
Let’s look at the accusation. The ad claims that Iran has supplied Iraqi insurgents with EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) – a high powered IED weapon capable of piercing the armor on US vehicles. This claim was first made in February of 2007 by the Bush administration who portrayed EFPs as a new kind of weapon, unavailable to Iraqis without Iranian sources.
Yet this claim that EFPs were a “new weapon” and were supplied by Iran was disproved almost immediately by multiple reputable sources. For example, Gareth Porter in the Asia Times pointed to Michael Knight’s analysis in Jane’s Intelligence Review [subscription] which found that, counter to the DoD claims that Iraqis were unable to produce these weapons themselves:
Iraqi Shi’ites have indeed manufactured both the components for EFPs and the complete EFPs. He observes that the kind of tools required to fabricate EFPs “can easily be found in Iraqi metalworking shops and garages”.
He also notes that some of the EFPs found in Iraq had substituted steel plates for the copper lining found in the externally made lids. Knights calculates that the entire production of EFPs exploded thus far could have been manufactured in one or at most two simple workshops with one or two specialists in each – one in the Baghdad area and one in southern Iraq.
David Hambling, writing at the time in Defenselink:
But as has been observed here, anyone can make crude and simple EFP munitions in a basic workshop. All you need is a lump of plastic explosive and a piece of copper. Shape the copper into a saucer, put the explosive under it, and you’re there. Obviously this will be a lot less efficient, accurate and reliable than something like SLAM (optimal design of the the metal ‘lens’ is an art requiring a lot of computer power), but you can compensate by making it ten times bigger if you need to.
Maybe the insurgents should be given some credit for being able to build their own gear, or maybe there’s more intelligence we don’t know. But if EFP mines were being supplied by an outside source, you might expect to see somethng a lot slicker.
Hambling went on to link to a report that:
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace seemed to contradict this claim [that the Iranian government was supplying EFPs], saying that he has not seen evidence that the Iranian government “clearly knows or is complicit” in the weapons smuggling.
In a report about the technology of EFPs, the New York Times also noted the shakiness of the claim:
The most specialized part of the E.F.P.’s that were found is the concave copper disc, called a liner, that rolls into a deadly armor-piercing ball when the device explodes. Although American explosives experts say that the liner is deceptively difficult to make properly, the discs in Hilla look like a thick little alms plate or even a souvenir ashtray minus the indentations for holding cigarettes.
The electronics package is built around everyday items like the motion sensors used in garage-door openers and outdoor security systems; in fact, at the heart of some of the bombs found in Iraq is a type of infrared sensor commonly sold at electronic stores like RadioShack.
Noah Shachtman at Danger Room also highlighted the problems with the BushCo claim and in fact, just a few weeks after making the claim, even General Odierno and Major Weber, the expert used to brief the press on these charges, began to walk the story back with Weber saying the EFPs might be “copy cats.”
Gareth Porter also reported that even Bush administration figures like Condi Rice and Steven Hadley doubted the Iranian EFP stories that Cheney was pushing and tried to get them quashed ahead of time but Petraeus went ahead with the announcement to the press just days after his appointment to command in Iraq.
As Cernig summed up the situation at the time:
Secondly, the claim that EFP’s are exclusively the property of Iran is just stupid. These same weapons were first used by the IRA and spread to Columbia’s FARC and Spain’s ETA as well as Hizboullah and other terror groups worldwide years before the US-led invasion of Iraq. They are easy to make in any minimally equipped machine shop and at least three manufactories for EFP’s have been found inside Iraq itself. When the US tried to prove that Iran was responsible for these weapons, the whole world laughed. Not a single EFP has ever been intercepted crossing the Iran-Iraq border, even though one entire regiment of British troops spent months actively looking. And the Pentagon’s ever-evolving explanations of contrary evidence have descended to fairy tales that contravene the laws of physics. Even General Pace and Admiral Fallon refused to get onboard the neocon warmongering train – which later cost both their jobs.
The VoteVets ad is certainly shocking and meant to be – and designed to get viewers upset enough to call congress. But will those viewers even notice the climate change call to action amongst all the “Iran kills our boys” imagery and the Iranian bombs Kill Americans rhetoric. It would not be surprising if instead they call for an attack on Iran.
As the Columbia Journalism Review noted in 2007 about the original claims:
We remember a time a few years back when the press was sloppy with the facts on another Middle Eastern country’s military capabilities, and its ability and willingness to export those capabilities. The nation—and the world—can’t afford to have this particular bit of history repeat itself.



63 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Thank you, Siun
Aloha, Suin…! I just posted my latest diary…!
Thanks, Siun. Makes me wonder how far down the war with Iran road VoteVets wants to travel. They’ll lose my support in a heartbeat they want to play that game.
It’s a shame I cannot access my Main and Central posts, Siun… I repeatedly cited DoD personnel saying the copper disc’s the EFP’s need were of local Iraqi sources… What’s ironic here is that Ahmed Chalabi is the biggest/only… WMD Iraq has ever produced…! 8-(
She’s Mad, Alright
The thing that bothers me, apart from the ad of course, is this seeming assumption that the Iraqis must have had help in constructing EFPs, that they could not have accomplished it without some high level government involvement.
Let’s remember the famous ammunition dump that was “liberated” by US forces, broken open and then left unguarded while truckloads of the stuff was hauled away. Let’s also take into account that though Hussein had no WMD, he had a healthy industry of conventional weapons going, if nothing else as a legacy of the Iran Iraq war. This included material producers, weapons designers, assemblers and so forth, all of whom were suddenly unemployed after the US led invasion of their country and all of whom had a right to feel a great deal of anger toward the United States.
Iraqis aren’t children who need their hands held in order to produce high quality conventional weapons. The assumption that they could not have done it without Iranian, Syrian or any other help is unfounded and ludicrous.
Precisely.
linfp2009:
Whoring your merchandise on a thread about people suffering and dying in the name of greed and elective war? Not cool.
Taken care of thanks to our wonderful mods.
Good deal! I’ve seen tasteless whoring before but that was abominable by even those “standards”.
The juxtaposition of “US meddling” and violence was way out of line.
I’m disappointed to see it as a banner here at the Lake, but, I do recognise they have no control over the ads…! *g*
Everyone from these folk to The Third Way to republican flat taxers wants to call their cause progressive these days.
They wouldn’t all be troubled by real progressivism, would they? *s*
I’m just proud to be a part of a site that never lets advertising determine our editorial content.
Even with CIA’s high tech help, it was the simple things that the Afghans managed to cobble together that defeated the Soviet Union in the end. And where is the Soviet Union after all of that elective warfare? Oh yeah! It isn’t because their one war drove them out of power and then out of existence. We can’t afford either one of the two wars we’re in and there are people that yearn to fight a war with Iran. Even if we weren’t already involved and even if our resources weren’t already stretched to the limit, thinking Iran would be a push over would be a fatal mistake. The outcome of attacking Iran under the BEST of circumstances isn’t in any way a sure thing.
As someone who is a first time commenter on firedoglake, and does a lot of work with electeds, candidates, and activist groups on Iran policy, I definitely agree that the last thing we want is the left hurting our chances to approach Iran responsibly.
When I watch the ad though, I think almost all viewers would have a couple of takeaways that are different from “we should attack Iran.”
1) Oil = bad (this is awesome)
2) Clean energy = good (this is awesome too)
3) Moderates and conservatives need pressure to take a tough vote against a bad Iran regime (I personally love turning the tables here).
So, all-in-all, it is less than ideal for Votevets.org to have to make claims about weapons from Iran finding their way into Iraq, but this is a strong and effective ad that advances a progressive agenda – something Votevets.org has a long track record of doing.
And, having worked with the good people of Votevets.org, I’m sure that (a) they’d be among the strongest voices against an ill-considered attack on Iran; (b) progressives can cut them some slack here, after weighing the balance of the case.
Hear! Hear! That’s why I’ve never had a problem with those silly “impeach Obama” “polls” and the Ann Coulter fan club banners. Hey, if they want to throw money away to help support a site that I enjoy when it’s not going to generate any income for them, that’s their own bad business decision, isn’t it?
…a site that never lets advertising determine our editorial content.
Nor anything else…! *g*
If their cause needs lies in order to advance, then they need to rethink the strategy. Republicans thought they could control first the bible thumpers and then the teabaggers. Pardon me if I’m skeptical of votevets playing with this particular fire. The “left” as you put it is way smarter than you apparently think.
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2010/03/03/many-voices-calling-for-war-with-iran/
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/07-1
I would like the chance to listen to the growen ups.
Welcome mjm.
Opinions have certainly varied – intensely – on the ad. (Take a look for example at the Kos debates about it) but my primary problem with it was the use of the EFP nonsense that was a Bush fabrication – and was quickly disproved. When you lead with the line “Iranian Bombs Kill Americans,” you really should back it up with something other than an old Cheney lie.
The only problem I have with your diatribe is the Iranian linkage…! Besides that we’re cool…! ;-)
This is a very good point. I didn’t mean to say that passing a climate change bill needs lies to advance – I definitely believe it is a worthy and truthful cause, as I’m sure that most people here do, and I apologize if I was less than clear.
Thanks Siun. I knew that something would get me to finally comment on here one day ;-)
Lemme see now, the right is for bombing Iran back to the Stone Age (sound familiar?) and the “left” has been anti-war since before the invasion of Afghanistan but the “left” is “hurting our chances to approach Iran responsibly?” Sure, I’ll climb right on that bandwagon. Not.
*heh* Phillip knows the score and Adm. Mullen knows that the entire 5th fleet could be the most expensive artificial reef in history…! Yeah for the fishies…! ;-)
That’s my point SouthernDragon. I think VoteVets.org (a left-leaning organization by any standards) is not hurting our chances for responsible engagement with this ad.
Glad you did – it’s a good community and the discussions are lively.
You mentioned above “working with the good people of VoteVets.” Are you a vet yourself with experience in Iraq or have you worked with them in other ways?
*heh* Even on Oscar night I can attain the Seminal top ten within an hour or so… Despite no comments yet…! ;-)
Just watched the ad. I’m really disappointed in votevets for producing a Bomb bomb bomb Iran , Ahmedinajad is scary propaganda ad. Disgusting turn of events. Thank you, Siun.
Did you just get off the turnip truck?
But even if they did, so what? Israel bombing the crap out of Lebanon with our our bombs and their ‘own’ albeit, subsidized by Uncle Sam.
Madeleine K. Albright, Leslie H. Gelb, and John D. Podesta want cap and trade.
That is all.
The opinions were, um, freely expressed. (I thought it was a very bad ad, just because of the lies about Iran. I also hate ‘skins’ on blogs. And at home I have outside ads blocked because too many of them have malware.)
Through the Clean Energy Works campaign http://www.cleanenergyworks.us/
this is an absolutely terrible ad, – you don’t want to have shit blow up in your face? – LEAVE! Instead we get neocon assignment of blame to Iran and all this shit in the name of our oil addiction? Who wrote this shit? Who approved it? Did we go to Iraq to ween ourselves off Oil? what is the message other than that we should be there and anyone in the region that has oil and a government we don’t approve on on behalf of Israel is bad? – mind numbingly inchoate.
Ah, the banner is back – so folks can see it themselves.
From the promo at VoteVets.org.
This is claptrap. As long as ships, aircraft, and vehicles are used by the military there will be a need for oil and neither ANWAR nor the Gulf of Mexico will meet that need for any extended length of time.
Too bad they used the bogus Iran connection to add to an establishment message.
SouthernDragon @ 38
“As long as ships, aircraft, and vehicles are used by the military there will be a need for oil…”
excellent point.
The Navy is launching a green fleet in 2012. They’ve set the most ambitious clean energy goals of any major organization: 50% clean energy by 2020 (including combat). Secretary Ray Mabus should get major props!
well that’s a fucking relief…/s
Cap and trade is a bigger scam than ethanol.
Interesting. Is Clean Energy Works involved in this new campaign with the VoteVets ad?
Clean energy? Nuclear? I certainly don’t consider nuclear clean. The Navy has the same waste disposal problem civilian reactors do, just not in the same volume. Other than oil/nuclear I don’t know of anything else that would power a warship.
I think the post is nit-picking and ignores the real message of the ad. I have no problem with the ad. This kind of progressive in-fighting just makes the RNC laugh…
It was so sickening to see our media PR run up to the Iraq invasion. Hope we do not have a repeat for more war.
By 2020 servicing of our debt is estimated to be 900 Billion! There will either be rotting carcass of our citizens in the streets or rotting navy ships in the ports. Our choice.
They can laugh all they want, bullshit is bullshit.
Progressive like Allbright, Gelb and Podesta?
SD, the military’s percentage of use of petroleum products is miniscule, compared to the civilian usage. And then there’s the nuclear powered fleet. So I’m not sure what your point was… unless it was that we should indeed get rid of all the warships? Not bad!
The point was the trading of dollars for oil isn’t going to end any time soon, using the military alone as an example. The ad also neglects that we are not the only nation on the planet trading dollars for oil. We may be the largest trader but we’re not alone. China’s oil imports are increasing. They’re buying more cars and building more factories as global manufacturing shifts to Asia.
Read your Post. The PR is ready to sell troops needed. Sucks don’t they already have enough trouble supplying the Wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
That doesn’t count the nuclear. Lots of biofuels though, which is a whole other debate. But at least they’re not helping bad regimes get rich.
It’s a two fer one special.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdyKJ1xXph8
I don’t think biofuels can be used in boilers, the main power plant of most non-nuclear ships, where Navy Standard Fuel Oil (NSFO) is superheated and sprayed as a fine mist into the unit, but a carburator it ain’t. They could be used in diesel-driven LST’s, for instance, and amphibious/small/river craft.
Gotta leap into my tree.
Be good to yourselves, and all other living things.
Namaste
VOTE FOR VETS ad as I read it was get of off oil. I am all for that.
Just adding a link, for anyone looking for further reading or research materials on the topic. From the title, you can tell what the author* thinks of VoteVets in this regard:
War, brought to you by ‘anti-war’ progressives
*According the short bio along the right sidebar at the link above, Charles Davis is a freelance/independent journalist who’s written for a number of organizations – outside of Pacifica and NPR, most of his work appears to go into leftie and anti-war Websites, several of which are pretty well known.
Innocuous enough where the Democrat party is concerned, ambiguous in its messaging – perfect for Rachel Maddow to take a bite at.
OT: Rachel Maddow,- what a frickin disappointment.
Maybe Obama can get Colin Powell to scare us with his little bottle of powder again. And those aerial photos of brick walls that appear and disappear always go over well.
The only way this reads is as marketing cap and trade to those who are ‘pro war’ – reps and independants. They’re taking a lesson from the HCR fiasco – “Can’t count so much on rolling the DFH’s anymore, gonna have to get some for sale reps on board on this go around.” They’re supplying a talking point meme to them.
Pretty clumsy though.
Good question.
The marines that I know who’ve been to Iraq think that Cheney belongs in jail.
This EFP thing is has turned out to be the old shave and haircut routine of the Iraq war. Every time Iraq slides another notch toward Iran right under our nose we say, tat tat, tat, tat – then answer tat, tat, with the EFP allocation. This time no doubt it’s for blustering up in advance of a big Sadr victory in the election, for which we have no control over whatsoever. And will only hasten our slide into final irrelevancy in that place.
It’s all ringing pretty hollow at this point, but it must be all we got left.
This is patently and unequivocally a neocon outfit. It’s vexing to find anyone having any doubt about this. The FDL site is taking revenue in support of this bullshit instead of really good shit.