On the heels of President George W. Bush’s latest threats against Iran for its “murderous activities” in Iraq, the Weekly Standard has obligingly published a 30-page report by Kimberly Kagan, spouse of Surge co-architect and American Enterprise Institute (AEI) fellow Frederick Kagan and director of an entity called The Institute for the Study of War, entitled “Iran’s Proxy War Against the United States and the Iraqi Government” . The report seems intended to back up a series of Bush’s assertions from his American Legion speech in Reno Wednesday about alleged Iranian support for and arming of “Shia extremists.” The coincidence of the speech and the report suggests some co-ordination between the White House and the Standard since the report itself would be the kind of product that would normally be put out by the State Department and/or the Pentagon. It would not be surprising if Cheney alludes to it in his next public appearance or media interview.
Unlike the breathless disclosures of Stephen Hayes, the Standard’s correspondent who was used by Cheney’s office and former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith as a conduit for “authorized” leaks regarding the alleged relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, Kagan’s report, the sixth in a series of monthly analyses defending the “Surge” strategy, appears to be based primarily on published sources and Pentagon briefings, although its factual assertions often go beyond those of the sources on which she relies. (“The government of Iran has also exported rockets, sniper rifles and mortars to enemy groups in Iraq.”) Unsurprisingly, her conclusions imply that diplomatic engagement with Iran is counter-productive. (“These negotiations with Iran, including the establishment of a tripartite sub-ambassadorial level coordinating committee on security in Iraq, have coincided with a significant increase in Iranian support for violence in Iraq.”)
The main thrust of the report is stated by its title, and it presages a major push by the U.S. military against Iranian-backed forces in Iraq. While it stresses that it does “not offer policy recommendations,” it also concludes that, with Sunni insurgents supposedly increasingly under control, “Iranian intervention is the next major problem the Coalition must tackle.”
The Summary reads as follows:
“Iran, and its Lebanese proxy Hezbollah, have been actively involved in supporting Shia militias and encouraging sectarian violence in Iraq since the invasion of 2003 – and Iranian planning and preparation for that effort began as early as 2002. The precise purposes of this support are unclear and may have changed over time. But one thing is very clear: Iran has consistently supplied weapons, its own advisors, and Lebanese Hezbollah advisors to multiple resistance groups in Iraq, both Sunni and Shia, and has supported these groups as they have targeted Sunni Arabs, Coalition forces, Iraqi Security Forces, and the Iraqi Government itself. Their influence runs from Kurdistan to Basrah, and Coalition forces, a dramatic change from previous periods that had seen the overwhelming majority of attacks coming from the Sunni Arab insurgency and al Qaeda.
“The Coalition has stepped-up [sic] its efforts to combat Iranian intervention in Iraq in recent months both because the Iranians have increased their support for violence in Iraq since the start of the surge and because Coalition successes against al Qaeda in Iraq and the larger Sunni insurgency have permitted the re-allocation of resources and effort against a problem that has plagued attempts to establish a stable government in Iraq from the outset. With those problems increasingly under control, Iranian intervention is the next major problem the Coalition must tackle.”
K. Kagan, who has accompanied her husband on some of his guided tours of Iraq (and indeed helped escort Bill Kristol on his trip there last month), is, like her husband, a military historian who, according to her bio, has taught at the U.S. Military Academy, Yale University, Georgetown University and American University and is currently an affiliate of Harvard’s John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, a department founded by Samuel Huntington is now headed by Steve Rosen. Rosen, as I noted in a recent post, is a prominent neo-conservative who is a member of Rudy Giuliani’s heavily Likudnik foreign policy advisory team and who also contributed to “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” the 2000 guide by Kristol’s Project for the New American Century (PNAC) to ensuring U.S. military dominance of much of the planet. Rosen, I understand, is not shy about granting affiliate status to like-minded scholars; he appointed Martin Kramer, another Giuliani adviser based in Israel, to a fellowship there.
Kagan’s Institute is something of a mystery. Its website, www.understandingwar.org, includes very little information about the organization, if that’s what it can be called. No mention of a board of directors or other associates or fellows besides Kagan herself. Only Kagan’s Iraq reports, her “courses, seminars, and lectures” and her “battlefield staff rides” which, so far as I can tell, have only to do with specific battles from classical Greek warfare through Caesar’s conquest of Gaul, the American Revolutionary and Civil Wars, the Napoleonic Wars (minus Spain, the most relevant campaign to the Iraq war), the wars of German Unification, and World Wars I and II. How this establishes her expertise for assessing the Iraq war or the extent of Iranian involvement in that war is quite beyond me, but then Frederick Kagan’s expertise is in 19th century Germany military history whose relevance to counter-insurgency warfare in the post-colonial period is also unclear.
Kimberley’s doctorate from Yale University was in Ancient History, which must gladden the heart of her father-in-law, Yale classicist (and neo-conservative) who also specializes in military history, Donald Kagan, under whom I presume she studied. Of course, her brother-in-law is Robert Kagan, one of neo-conservatism’s leading thinkers. Which once again helps illustrate just how small and incestuous the neo-conservative elite is, what with the Kristol-Himmelfarbs, the Podhoretz-Decter-Abrams, the Kagans, the Gaffneys (Frank and Devon) siblings, and the Ledeens (Michael, Barbara, and Simone), to the most prominent. It’s no wonder that they are so susceptible to groupthink.
Steve
August 31, 2007 @ 1:16 am
One of the Kagan brothers appeared on C-SPAN supported “the surge” advocating our troops in Iraq should seek permission from the Iraqis to enter their homes looking for weapons. If such permission is not granted then they should batter down the doors to find them. Listening to this I wondered why this man had so much power in creating U.S. foreign policy in the Mideast and also pondered how we Americans would respond if accorded the same treatment by a foreign invader?
Scott Malensek
August 31, 2007 @ 8:36 am
I appreciate sound, concerned opposition to the war in Iraq, but as soon as I see political buzzwords and talking points that are factually misleading I start to wonder if the source is ignorant of facts or driven to deliberately misleading to feed their personal political partisanship. I’m not sure which is the case here, but there’s some definite misleading going on. Buzzwords like “PNAC,” “neocon,” “neo-conservative,” and the very mention of Doug Feith’s name all evoke a tongue in cheek.
The PNAC’s middle east strategy (too often the source for “neocon” labeling) actually stems from the Clinton’s political leadership brainchild, the Democratic Leadership Council, and thus to be conservative or neocon is misleading as that strategy is clearly bi-partisan in origin.
I’m also interested in how the implied Bush Lied mantra is presented by invoking the name of Doug Feith. He was accused by failed members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence as having deliberately misled the White House into believing that Al Queda and Iraq had close ties. Whether or not those reports and or the ties were accurate is secondary to me since whatever Feith told the White House-whatever alleged misleading he did-was irrelevant. 48hrs after his group made their report to the White House, the CIA made theirs, and the CIA report (Iraqi Support for Terrorism 2002) was far more detailed than the one presented by Feith’s group. Any ambiguity, lack of clarity, or falsehoods presented by Feith’s group on Monday were cleared up (literally) the following Wednesday. Whenever someone uses his name to suggest that there was a deliberate and effective manipulation or misleading of America, I wonder if they’re parroting a political talking point or if they’re ignorant of history?
In this article, it seems that political talking point parroting and partisanship rule over fact, and it seems deliberate.
Alan
August 31, 2007 @ 8:51 am
Yes, Kagan’s perspective may be consonant with that of the Bush administration. But Jim, you leave out the real question… do realities on the ground support her argumentation? According to combatant commanders, they do. Interesting that you would neglect to mention that, seasoned “journalist” that you are.
Binh
August 31, 2007 @ 9:25 am
do realities on the ground support her argumentation? According to combatant commanders, they do. Interesting that you would neglect to mention that, seasoned “journalist” that you are.
How the hell do commanders on the ground know where IED come from? Is “made in Iran” stamped on every piece of shrapnel recovered from our humvees?
Also, if Shia are getting all these fancy, powerful explosives from Iran, why haven’t they used any on Sunni mosques?
Mark Strand
August 31, 2007 @ 10:17 am
Alan,
What “realities?”
U.S. marked weapons are turning up in the hands of Kurdish terorists in Turkey and are being used to murder Turks. Should I infer that it is U.S. policy to support terror attacks on Turkey?
The realities on the ground are that so long as we keep 160,000 troops in a forward posture holding the urban street corners, violence will be tamped down and our casualties will be probably halved.
But what then? Y
You will have to remain in that posture indefintely. If you pull back, insurgents will take the opportunity to shoot at out soldiers again.
You guys are so smart! The future of an Iraq under permanent U.S. occupation is already visible. Just look at the West Bank. 40 years on and the IDF can’t eradicate an inurgency in a tiny and completely surrounded and cut off territory.
It won’t end any better for us and the willfull ingnorance of that example is criminal.
Tyler
August 31, 2007 @ 10:30 am
The real problem here is with most so called “experts” in our society. Big shot think they no everything about everything because they read some books.How does being a military historian make you an “expert” on todays on-going military conflicts? Now i will admit you may be good at seeing and understanding somones military strategy they are trying to use, but as any idiot will know, what your strategy is and what actually happens on the ground, can be two very different things. Just because your strategy “could” work in “theory” does not neccessarily mean it will. The Strategists and policy makers in the White House should of all people know this. After all they are the “experts”, im just a young bonehead. Anyway im sure the few days they have spent in Iraq confined to small areas of heavily gaurded “safe zones” should rectify any of my doubts that they have a clear understanding of whats going on. I somewhat agree with Scott, it doesnt matter if they are Democrats or Republicans, with the exeption of a few, they are all the same. They screwed up Palestine, they screwed up Lebanon, they screwed up Iraq, and they will most definately screw up Iran. “Those who fail to learn from history, are cursed to repeat it.” They can study it all they want, but does its lessons really sink in???
Don Bacon
August 31, 2007 @ 10:48 am
The Washington Post is doing its part to promote war with Iran.
The lead editorial in the Washington Post on August 21st was: Tougher on Iran: According to the Pentagon, one-third of the U.S. troops who died in Iraq last month — 23 soldiers — were killed by “explosively formed penetrators,” sophisticated bombs supplied by Tehran. Iran also delivers rockets and other weapons to Shiite militias; on Sunday, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch said that about 50 members of the Revolutionary Guard Corps were operating in the area south of Baghdad, where they are “facilitating training of Shiite extremists.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/20/AR2007082001581_pf.html
Major General Lynch on EFP’s in Iraq: We’re doing things like looking at tool marks on these EFPs and the source of the explosives and the manufacturing capability, and those EFP components are coming to Iran — coming from Iran into Iraq, and they’re killing Iraqis, and they’re killing the coalition soldiers. . . what we’re finding is distinct marks that could only be created by machinery and capabilities coming out of Iran. So there’s no doubt in my mind when I talk about EFP components being manufactured in Iran and coming into Iraq and then assembled inside of Iraq to attack our soldiers and Iraqi security force soldiers and innocent Iraqis . . And there are indeed manufacturing marks on these munitions that could only have come from a place like Iran, the only place they could have come. They couldn’t have been manufactured here in Iraq. They are being assembled here in Iraq.
Major General Lynch on Iranians in Iraq: We assess that there are 50 or so Iranian and Iraqi operatives working for Iran in our area, about 20 of which who we are actively targeting. . . What I believe in my battlespace is I’ve got IRGC surrogates, people that have been trained by the IRGC in Iran who’ve come back in Iraq to conduct acts of violence, and I believe I got some members of the IRGC, some Iranians, who are working in our battlespace. And what they do is they transit the battlespace. They don’t come in and they stay, but they’re going back and forth. The primary concern, as I say, is the number 50; the good majority of those are IRGC surrogates. They’re operatives that have been trained by the IRGC. . . Having said that, I do believe that at any given time, I got up to about 20 Iranians working in our battlespace, you know, either training Iraqis to conduct acts of violence or conducting those acts of violence themselves, and we’re working detailed targeting on all those people.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4028
So we have General Lynch’s “distinct marks that could only be created by machinery and capabilities coming out of Iran” and “EFP components being manufactured in Iran” and “no doubt in my mind when I talk about EFP components being manufactured in Iran and coming into Iraq and then assembled inside of Iraq” converted by the WaPo to “”explosively formed penetrators, sophisticated bombs supplied by Tehran”.
We also have General Lynch’s “50 or so Iranian and Iraqi operatives working for Iran” or “IRGC surrogates” or “some members of the IRGC, some Iranians” or “operatives that have been trained by the IRGC” or “Iranians” transformed by the WaPo into “about 50 members of the Revolutionary Guard Corps”.
The lies concocted by the Washington Post have been picked up by other “news” sources and published nationwide, and on the EFP’s were a part of President Bush’s American Legion speech. We know why Bush wants war, but why does the WaPo want war with Iran?–must be good for business (advertising).
lolo bxl
August 31, 2007 @ 11:03 am
unexpected “surge” supporters :
not a long while ago, after touring damas and teheran, maliki suddenly came up with a renewed sunni support. of course it is not expected to last long, but it may hold until the congressional review…
then
sadr annonces a pause in antiamerican resistance by its mahdi army….
and, if the message wasn’t clear enough, ahmadinedjad claims (just as bush repetedly said) that iran stands ready to take the us’ place in irak should they leave !!!
these pushes and pull should convince the congress that staying the course is the best of the present situation.
but then, why does iran and syria decided that maximum us troops in irak are better for them than reduced numbers, contrary to what they’ve been telling all along ?
Mark Strand
August 31, 2007 @ 11:41 am
lolo,
How’s Iran going to “take our place” in Iraq.
If you think they have that capability, I say let them. They’ll be tied down in an expensive, futile and debilitating occupation just like us. Then, strategically, you’ll have them rioght where you want them.
Really, what the ever chaning rationale for war is now is to prevent any natural economic or political links to form between Iraq, whihc is majority Shia, and Iran, which is a Shia state.
Any undergraduate could have told you that this would be the result of removing Saddam and the Sunni Baathists in Iraq. It was a gift to Iran.
But, perhaps that was part of the plan. As the Shis forge cooperative links, that frees the neocons to spin it as a sinister and malevolent Iranian that needs to be resisted with more war.
Peter Chamberlin
August 31, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
Scott Malensek’s defense of Douglas Feith and everything that is holy to the neocon/fascists and their program to install permanent war as the new American way of life is pure garbage. Even the Pentagon’s own
inspector general’s report states that Feith’s briefing to the White House in 2002 “undercuts the Intelligence Community” and “did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence.”
The neocon war plan was not a product of the Democratic Leadership Council (even though many of them awakened to their undead state while still Democrats), it began in Sec. Defense Cheney’s office in 1992, when old Dick rejected the foreign policy of his own president, to not level Iraq, and had his poodle Wolfowitz draw-up a new more macho plan, Defense Planning Guidance. Their boys at PNAC foisted it upon Clinton in the Iraq Liberation Act and brought it to life with Lil Bush.
As for the EFPs, that could only have been manufactured in Iran, the link below is about an Iraqi factory producing them, that was busted by our forces. Ignore the little neocon parrots as they push Bush to unleash new genocide against Iran, Lebanon and Syria.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2007/04/06/iraqi_us_forces_sweep_through_iraqi_city/
Joebhed
August 31, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
First, Jim’s post is a straightforward laying out of the truth about the propoganda conspiracy that is coming our way, even tho it may be legal, in support of attacking Iran on the administration’s way out the door.
It is, in a word, incontrovertible. And I thank Jim for his work.
SM appears to try to correct the record that this is not a neocon thing, as the Clintonites and DLC were just as culpable. I say thank you very much for pointing that out. It does nothing to right any of the wrongdoing being perpetrted on the country and the planet, but it does spread the guilt around, perhaps in a more even-handed way.
Yes, the neoliberals(Democrats) cannot be relied on to do anything different than the neocons. They are both in awe and fear of AIPAc and the Mossad, and we really should keep that in mind.
Unfortunately, he also tries to somehow deny the truth that Bush Lied because we can count on the fact that the CIA version of the facts corrected the falsehoods delivered by Cheney’s office by DF the previous week. Now, whomever believes that is someone clearly not looking for the cause of the problem, but for an obfuscated version of reality.
And to finalize about the last war, I think PC above says it best.
But Jim was writing about the next war. How can there be any doubt in any observer’s mind that the same old Cheney-driven, DLC and PNAC supported vacuous rhetoric is not now again unfolding before our eyes while the mainstream media beats the war drums in a way that clearly covers up their weak and tardy mea-culpa for making the exact same mistake last time.
Keep your fingers crossed for peace.
Ben
August 31, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
This blog needs a serious redesign so that it is taken more seriously at first glance by new readers.
Don Bacon
August 31, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
Iran is “surging” in Iraq also–
Major General James Simmons
Deputy Commanding General for Multi National Forces in Iraq
interview with Hugh Hewitt (extract)
August 29, 2007
HH: All right, Iâll follow up with him. But then let me ask you generally, do you think Iranian-backed attacks are increasing or decreasing right now?
JS: I believe that the Iranians have supplied, they have surged supplies, training and munitions into Iraq to counter our surge operations that we are conducting.
HH: And what level does that rise to? Are they doubling, tripling their effort?
JS: I would hate to put a number on it, but what we saw was in July, we had the highest number of EFPâs that we have had in theater. Those EFPâs come from Iran. We have still seen a significant uptick in EFPâs, although the numbers are probably going to be lower in August than they were in July. The number of rocket attacks and indirect fire attacks into our FOBâs and our camps has been elevated, and the fires have come predominantly from Shia-dominated areas, and those are Iranian made munitions that are being fired in that. And then we have some very clear evidence that there has been training that has been sponsored by folks that use the techniques that Iranians use to train people.
HH: Can you expand on that a little bit, General, as to what kind of evidentiary markers you find that would lead one to believe the Quds forces are involved, or Hezbollah?
JS: Itâs the techniques that they use for in placing the weapons systems, particular the indirect fire systems that theyâre using, which require some form of military training to be able to execute that.
HH: Have we captured actual Iranians in operational settings, General, as opposed to simply doing espionage, meaning that theyâre commanding and controlling attacks on Americans?
JS: I really donât think Iâm in a position to be qualified to answer that one.
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/talkradio/transcripts/Transcript.aspx?ContentGuid=d3daae76-7f52-4b29-a9b5-06573738a55f
G. Preacher
August 31, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
Observing that IED (Improvised Explosive Device) or better explained Minto’s in the soda bottle included are not a formal or recognised weapon system. These getting built, in pipe bomb fashion by various Iraqi resistance groups, whom coincidently are called ‘insurgents’ (implying an illigitimate group in opposition to a established, and capable government). The term IED, then having undergone a make over, has come to be called Explosively Formed Projectiles/Penetrators (pick your choice of the euphemism depending on the testosterone levels). In any case the Orwellian new-speak apparently has done the trick, and now the debate has moved on to who is manufacturing these?
Fact that this narrative unfolding originally was floated as ’shaped charges’ to distance it from the ‘Improvised’ curse, which was the label used first to indicate the weakness of the Iraqi forces, hence validating the prognosis of yet another neo con Kenneth ‘Cake Walk’ Adelman. Alas the Iraqis whom were to greet the invaders with sweet, flowers, and songs, had not read or heard of yet more neo con Mr. Perle’s scenario, and chose to fight back. Hence the need for transmogrification of IED to ‘Shaped Charges’ making these more sophisticated, and more difficult to fight with, although as anyone knows shaped charges have been around since the nineteenth century, and are not exactly cutting edge science. Also at that time the technicalities of the high-explosives were floated to make these Do It Yourself devices more complex (ie hdx, etc.) hence explaining away the delays in the accomplishment of the ‘Mission Accomplished’. These efforts in attempting to give traction to the travails, and slings and arrows of the war not getting anywhere, and the slow and perhaps stunted progress of ‘victory’, then finally the EFP’s were introduced, and this time around the marketing boys managed to get the narrative going, and further the hunt for the fiendish ‘Moriarty’ whose dastardly superior technology is now further grinding the accomplishment of the ‘Mission Accomplished) to a halt. Although EFP are in fact IED with a twist, that can be mastered by any first year metallurgy course student, and or any competent blacksmith, but who cares about the mundane facts, we make our own ‘reality’ these days.
Presto the Iranians are put into the frame with some media packages of bullets and shells to boot. Fact that Iran sells weapons to some forty five or more countries, and their weapons can be obtained from numerous sources is never mentioned, and further not mentioned are the authenticity of the finds, and the merits of such an ‘accurate’ pontification. Those whom do not suffer from dementia, would remember the ‘Uranom’ [sic] (this material was a combination of Zinc, Magnesium, and some other compounds which would have made a great poultice for anyone afflicted by boils) find on the Iraqi Turkish border, that was shown to the world in its ‘Made In Germany’ cannister with the subsequent voice over of the rent an expert mob, whom all speculated the amounts of uranium found, to be one half of that needed for production of a WMD. This event taking place in the months leading up to Iraq war. It is worth noting that Turkey, and Germany at the time were not playing the game as they were expected to by US, hence the implied guilt, and of course yet another ’smoking gun’ proving Saddam’s drive for getting nukes.
Also worth remembering is the weapons find in Vietnam, that were always trumpeted in the media, at the time of that war which apparently could have been won, as per Mr. Bush speeches of late. Those images of Sampans stuffed with all manner of weapons, were attributed to Laotians aiding and abetting the ‘Vietcong’ by filling up these vessels with weapons, and subsequently cutting these loose, for the ‘Vietcong’ down the river, which was a prelude to attacks on Laos. Although we now know that these weapon filled Sampans were in fact CIA inspired and affected operations, nevertheless hundreds of thousands of Laotians were killed anyway.
Finally, considering that even the more conscientious, among the journalists are using the new-speak references, product of think tankery, in fact aiding in confusing of an already made complex story for the lesser mortals. It is no wonder that the neo con enjoy such an easy passage time and again in doing what they do the best; confuse the punters even more.
Fact that our political institutions have steadily sought and set up constructs to reduce the levels of accountability, to their constituents, ie we the people, is never discussed in the brouhaha of the apparent discourse that somehow outsources the whole of US foreign policy to various think tanks enjoying funds from dubious sources which are in fact offshore constructs of the various federal entities with no accountability of any sorts. This facet extending to the instantiation of the ‘Office of Special Plans’ in Pentagon which was basically Mr. Fieth, an Intern, and others whom Mr. Fieth chose to shape up the Iraqi intelligence for the media, while spooks of all manner and shape bound by their secrecy, left the field open for Mr. Fieth’s shenanigans. That in fact shows the degree of deterioration in any kind of accountability. Hence it should come as no surprise to Find Mr. Kagan, Mrs Kagan, Kagans’ in laws, Kagans’ neighbours, Kagans’ pets producing documents that are then touted in the media as the precursors for policy annunciations. The title ought to be outsourced US foreign policy, where is it going?
lolo bxl
September 1, 2007 @ 8:22 am
mark,
when ahmadinedjad says “very well, go, we’ll take your place” he knows perfectly that this will be a strong argument in the us against leaving. he certainly doesn’t want to get involve in the irak mess while his country can exert great infulence through proxies.
so the question is still unanswered : why does he wants the surge to stay the course ?
MOT
September 1, 2007 @ 11:33 am
Well, the screw keeps on turning while the world keeps on burning. Gotta hand it to GW. If this is a humbler and more compassionate “conservatism” God help us all if he really gets pissed. All that phony “born again” baloney doesn’t excuse the active ordering and delegation of murder and destruction, even if you’re thousands of miles away.
And as far as Iranians in Iraq go… Isn’t it the least bit likely you’d have ex Revolutionary Guards getting their mojo on inside of Iraq just like ex-military become mercenaries for Blackwater etc.? How is becoming a highly paid killer in the employ of large foreign corporations somehow noble while others, fighting for whatever reason, are labeled “terrorist”.
And just how far is Iran from Iraq anyway? Gosh! It’s right next door. As if there might not be blood relatives living just across that invisible line called a border. And knowing the penchant for revenge in that region it doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a “decider” to put 2 and 2 together.
The absurdities vomited forth from the political pie holes of this cast of thieves is astonishing. We really shouldn’t be surprised by any of this but there comes a time when you realize that the end really must be near. It’s like watching bad actors mumble their lines knowing full well it doesn’t matter anymore. The show is closing.
inbound call centers
February 3, 2010 @ 9:16 pm
Another proxy war? It is just frustrating that it still exists, but what can we do when we know that it is one of the things marketable today. We can’t deny the fact that arms are so marketable and that war will not not end if arms will stop its production.