Well, now, this is interesting:

A failed American attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to northern Iraq was the starting pistol for a crisis that 10 weeks later led to Iranians seizing 15 British sailors and Marines.

Early on the morning of 11 January, helicopter-born US forces launched a surprise raid on a long-established Iranian liaison office in the city of Arbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. They captured five relatively junior Iranian officials whom the US accuses of being intelligence agents and still holds.

In reality the US attack had a far more ambitious objective, The Independent has learned. The aim of the raid, launched without informing the Kurdish authorities, was to seize two men at the very heart of the Iranian security establishment.

Better understanding of the seriousness of the US action in Arbil - and the angry Iranian response to it - should have led Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence to realise that Iran was likely to retaliate against American or British forces such as highly vulnerable Navy search parties in the Gulf. The two senior Iranian officers the US sought to capture were Mohammed Jafari, the powerful deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, and General Minojahar Frouzanda, the chief of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, according to Kurdish officials. …

The attempt by the US to seize the two high-ranking Iranian security officers openly meeting with Iraqi leaders is somewhat as if Iran had tried to kidnap the heads of the CIA and MI6 while they were on an official visit to a country neighbouring Iran, such as Pakistan or Afghanistan. …

US officials in Washington subsequently claimed that the five Iranian officials they did seize, who have not been seen since, were “suspected of being closely tied to activities targeting Iraq and coalition forces”. This explanation never made much sense. No member of the US-led coalition has been killed in Arbil and there were no Sunni-Arab insurgents or Shia militiamen there.

The raid on Arbil took place within hours of President George Bush making an address to the nation on 10 January in which he claimed: “Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops.”

I’d like to know more about our reasons for targeting these men, our evidence against them, etc. But on the surface, I don’t think I like this very much. Certainly, we should be working aggressively to stop Iranian proxy attacks on our troops, but kidnapping high-ranking Iranian officials? Isn’t that how wars get started? Unless that’s what the Bush Administration wants… in which case, they should really have a chat with Congress before they commit a causus bellum…

P.S. Of course, Iranian proxy attacks on our troops, if proven, are themselves a causus bellum. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wise to go to war over it, though. And yet if we had successfully kidnapped a pair of high-ranking Iranian officials, that would have put the ball squarely in Iran’s court, in terms of whether to take the bellicose bait.

In case you can’t tell from my headline, I’m rather skeptical of this report:

The United States will be ready to launch a missile attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities as soon as early this month, perhaps “from 4 a.m. until 4 p.m. on April 6,” according to reports in the Russian media on Saturday.

According to Russian intelligence sources, the reports said, the US has devised a plan to attack several targets in Iran, and an assault could be carried out by launching missiles from fighter jets and warships stationed in the Persian Gulf.

Russian news agency RIA Novosti quoted a security official as saying, “Russian intelligence has information that the US Armed Forces stationed in the Persian Gulf have nearly completed preparations for a missile strike against Iranian territory.”

The Russian Defense Ministry rejected the claims of an imminent attack as “myths.” There was no immediate response from Washington.

More plausible is this report, which says Iran, Syria and Hezbollah are preparing for a possible U.S. attack on Iran this summer:

“Their preparation is defensive ahead of war … They fear a war initiated by the Americans because they understand that there might be an attack against Iran over the summer, but not by Israel,” [the head of the Israeli Defense Forces’ Military Intelligence] Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin told the Cabinet.

In other news, a former FBI agent is missing in Iran:

Sources tell ABC News that the missing American was a former FBI agent, although they stressed that he was now a private citizen and that his trip to Iran was on “private business” and not associated with official U.S. matters.

State spokesman Sean McCormack said that the United States had been monitoring this case for several weeks and today had sent a message to Iran through diplomatic channels for more information on his whereabouts.

State Department officials say that Iran has yet to respond with any information.

Oh, and here’s the latest on the U.K.-Iran hostage standoff:

Iranian state radio reported that all 15 British sailors and marines held captive by Iran have confessed to illegally entering Iranian waters but, in an apparent softening in the dispute, said their statements would not air because of “positive changes” from Britain.

The softer tone was apparently mirrored in London, where an official said Britain has agreed to consider discussing with Iran how to avoid future disputes over contested waters in the Persian Gulf.

Britain, however, wants an unconditional release of the crew and is not “negotiating” for their freedom, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the crisis. Iran has demanded an apology from Britain as a condition for the release of the crew, who were seized March 23.

Britain contends the sailors were in Iraqi waters, however, and has said it would not apologize. It has also criticized the airing of footage of four of the sailors confessing so far, saying the statements appeared coerced and the broadcasting of captured military personnel violated international norms.

And here I thought the Geneva Conventions were really, really important. Apparently not:

I just checked Amnesty International’s web site for to get a copy of their demand that the Iranians release the British prisoners and condemning the statements made under coercive conditions and the broadcast of the images of the prisoners.

Surprise. There isn’t one.

There is, however, a report titled “USA: Justice delayed and justice denied? Trials under the Military Commissions Act.” I eagerly await the report similarly condemning the show trials Iran may be planning for the kidnapped soldiers.

Speaking of useless international organizations, the U.N. has expressed “grave concern” over the standoff between the U.K. and Iran — but heaven forbid it go further and, you know, specifically condemn the Iranian action and demand the soldiers’ immediate and unconditional release. That would be taking sides! Nevermind that one side is violating international law, and the other isn’t…

The Security Council’s statement was a watered-down version of a stronger draft sought by Britain to “deplore” Iranian actions and urge the immediate release of the prisoners, primarily because Russia and South Africa opposed putting blame on the Tehran regime, diplomats said.

As I said: useless.

More apparent British hardening and Iranian softening of their respective lines on the kidnapped-soldier kerfuffle:

Britain said it was freezing talks on all other issues with Iran until it freed 15 Royal Navy crew members seized last week, and the British military released what it said was proof its boats were within Iraqi territorial waters when they were seized.

Iran’s foreign minister said meanwhile a female British sailor held captive by Iran may be released later Wednesday or on Thursday, a Turkish TV station reported.

“The woman soldier is free either today or tomorrow,” CNN-Turk television quoted Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki as saying on the sidelines of an Arab summit meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

On the other hand, Drudge now has a siren for the headline: “Iran TV to air footage of captured Britons.” Will they be paraded around blindfolded and subjected to a mock execution this time? And then there’s this:

Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran’s borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.

“The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran,” the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.

Dunno how much to make of that (a commenter points out that the Russian media has a reputation for reporting bizarre “news” stories, like UFO crashes), but certainly, these are perilous times.

More from the first article after the jump.

(more…)

Is Tony Blair preparing to follow dcl’s advice? At first blush, it sounds like he’s stepping up the warmongering:

Efforts to secure the release of 15 Royal Navy personnel held by Iran will enter a “different phase” if diplomatic moves fail, Tony Blair has said. …

“These people have to be released,” the prime minister told GMTV.

“What we are trying to do at the moment is to pursue this through the diplomatic channels and make the Iranian government understand these people have to be released and that there is absolutely no justification whatever for holding them.

“I hope we manage to get them to realise they have to release them. If not, then this will move into a different phase.”

Apparently, though, “different phrase” simply means more harshly-worded memos and such:

The prime minister’s official spokesman said Mr Blair’s remarks about a “different phase” did not refer to any extreme diplomatic action, such as expelling Iranian diplomats from Britain or military action.

“We have been clearly stating that we are utterly certain that the personnel were in Iraqi waters.

“We so far have not made explicit why we know that, because we don’t want to escalate this.”

Britain’s former ambassador to Iran, Sir Richard Dalton, said “different phase” could mean generating pressure on Iran from the international community.

“I expect he means that we shall have to step up criticism and generate additional international pressures on Iran,” he said.

“It could be that they think that by dramatising the fact that these people were taken on an international mission while in Iraqi waters even further, will give Iran pause and give them a chance to rethink.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. is conducing war games in a show of force in the Gulf.

I apologize for the lack of updates on the Iran-U.K. crisis. Over the weekend, there was a definite hardening of the British tone, as indicated by what the Telegraph reported yesterday: “Tony Blair warned Iran last night that it has only a few days to find a diplomatic solution to the escalating crisis over the 15 missing British sailors and Marines.”

Of course, this raises the question, only a few days… or what? Blair didn’t say, and that has The Times of London upset:

[The soldiers’] kidnapping is an outrage. In earlier times it would have been an immediate casus belli. It would fully justify the use of force to obtain their release. There is, however, an even greater outrage compounding this insult to international law: the pusillanimous timidity of British officials and politicians, who have failed disgracefully to confront Iran with the ultimatum this flagrant aggression demands.

Frankly, I’m not sure if Blair’s words were even as obliquely confrontational as the Telegraph suggested (”only a few days to find a diplomatic solution”). This CNN video includes his actual statement, so you can judge for yourself:

Meanwhile, an article in The Australian quotes a White House spokeswoman referring to the incident as a “hostage-taking” and saying the Bush Administration shares Britain’s “concern and outrage.” (Hat tip: Right Wing News, via Melissa Clouthier.)

The good news (potentially, at least) is that Iran’s tone appeared to soften on Monday:

Iran said Monday it was questioning 15 British sailors and marines to determine if their alleged entry into Iranian waters was “intentional or unintentional” before deciding what to do with them—the first sign it could be seeking a way out of the standoff. …

The Iranian emphasis Monday on the detainees’ intent was a noticeable pullback from the certainty expressed Saturday by Iran’s military chief, Gen. Ali Reza Afshar. Afshar said then that the 15 confessed to “aggression into the Islamic Republic of Iran’s waters.”

Meanwhile, oil prices spiked because of “fears that tensions over [the kidnapping] and Tehran’s nuclear programme could escalate into a wider confrontation.”

Pajamas Media has a continually updated roundup post.

P.S. Admiral Sir Alan West explains the rules of engagement for British soldiers in the situation they were confronted with:

The rules are very much de-escalatory, because we don’t want wars starting. … So we try to downplay things. Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were effectively able to be captured and taken away.

If we find this is going to be a standard practice we need to think very carefully about what rules of engagement we want and how we operate. One can’t allow as a standard practice nations to capture a nation’s servicemen. That is clearly wrong.

What the hell is Iran up to?

Fifteen British Navy personnel have been captured at gunpoint by Iranian forces, the Ministry of Defence says.

The men were seized at 1030 local time when they boarded a boat in the Gulf, off the coast of Iraq, which they suspected was smuggling cars.

The Royal Navy said it was doing everything it could to secure the release of the sailors and marines who are based on HMS Cornwall.

They were said to be carrying out a routine patrol in Iraqi waters.

The Ministry of Defence said: “The group boarding party had completed a successful inspection of a merchant ship when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters.

“We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level.

“The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment.”

It is understood the men being held are safe and well.

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has summoned the Iranian ambassador in London to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in an attempt to get the sailors and marines released as quickly as possible.

In a statement, leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Menzies Campbell, also called for their immediate release.

“Whatever the rights and wrongs of military action, British forces in Iraq are now there with the authority of a UN security council resolution… and the Iranian government should be left in no doubt of the serious implications of their action,” he said.

I can’t wait to hear what Tony Blair has to say about this. Iran had better comply with the Brits’ demands, and fast, or this could get very… interesting. You don’t mess with Texas, and you don’t f**k with the British and their troops.

UPDATE: BBC has live streaming video.

UPDATE 2: Pajamas Media has a roundup of blogospheric reaction, which ranges from the bellicose (”This could justifiably be called an act of war”) to the bellicose and racist (”Tony Blair I beg you… give these sand monkeys what they want, nuclear weapons. If this is not the catalyst for World War 3 Blair then what the hell is?”) to the decidedly unconcerned (”My thinking is that this will cause a short media kerfuffle, will ratchet up the rhetoric for a while, and then be resolved peacefully with both sides believing and publicly stating that they were in the right”).

It should be noted that a similar incident in 2004 — during which the captured British soldiers were blindfolded, paraded on Iranian TV, and also subjected to a mock execution — ended without, uh, World War 3 breaking out. However, it should also be noted that that was pre-Ahmadinejad, so the Iranian government was considerably less hardline, and tensions between Iran and the West were considerably less high. Also, let’s not forget that Ahmadinejad was personally involved in the taking of American hostages in 1979. Just saying.

P.S. The Jawa Report asks:

Isn’t this an act of war?

Another update: Given that embassies in Tehran were making evacuation plans yesterday…..er, I hate to place the tinfoil hat on here, but what are the chances that this was a planned operation?

I think the fundamental question remains the one I asked at the top of this post: What the hell is Iran up to? They’re clearly up to something.

Daily Pundit doesn’t think we (by which he presumably means, the West) will respond to this provocation adequately:

[W]hat will we do about it? Nothing. They could hang these men on live TV (let’s hope they don’t) and still we would do little except bluster ineffectually.

The Iranians are feeling their oats, and with good reason. The extent to which they are supporting the Shia terrorists in Iraq, and fomenting unrest generally, should by now have had very serious consequences for them. Our pusillanimity is astounding.

I don’t know. I’m not so sure the Brits would tolerate a live TV hanging of their soldiers. The English have a stiff upper lip, but they also have a stiff upper-cut when forced to fight. I keep thinking of that line from some awful TV movie back in the late 90’s, where the British officer closes a runway so an American plane suspected of carrying a deadly virus can’t land on British soil, and when an American officer asks him “What was that about?” he responds defiantly: “Sovereignty, sir… ours.” The British are proud people. If you push them hard enough, the Empire will strike back.

UPDATE 3: Hot Air:

I figure they’ll be released soon and the incident will be dismissed as a misunderstanding. Iran can’t have meant to do this, not with Ahmadinejad set to address the Security Council tomorrow about the nuclear program and not to the British, who’ve been adamant in opposing any military action on Iran.

That presumes Iran’s leadership is rational, which I believe is an open question.

Re: Ahmadinejad addressing the U.N., Becky suggests: “Why not take him hostage?” Heh.

Strata-Sphere:

Iran is playing a very, very stupid game in the seizure of British forces in Iraqi waters. … It is stupid because it is an assault on the UK and EU - not the US. Therefore there will be little media or liberal sympathy [for the Iranians]. It was in Iraqi waters, which is the equivalent of an invasion on land over a border and capturing soldiers. Sadly, the British are not going to like having their sailors captured by Islamo Fascists in rubber boats. So the pride angle here is also going to be a big factor.

It is stupid because now it is clear to everyone Iran’s beligerence is dangerous and out of control. What concerns me is why do this unless you had something in your hip pocket and you were going to play some poker. Why do this kind of escalation? And what will our Democrats do - say the West cannot confront Iran? Talk about bad timing. We are heading into some seriously perilous times right now. We have amassed a large navy force in the region, so we could respond. I doubt we will immediately. Iran may just be trying to do a prisoner swap. But it was a dumb and dangerous move all the same.

UPDATE 4: The Counterterrorism Blog asks a bunch of pertinent questions:

Is this an intentional act approved by senior Iranian leadership in response to findings of the British personnel, or possibly in reaction to the upcoming U.N. vote against Iran? The official IRNA news site includes a story complaining that the White House is throwing up a last-minute obstacle to the issuance of a visa for President Ahmadinejad to take part in the U.N. Security Council meeting Saturday on the Iran sanctions resolution - could that be the reason for this action? Is this a provocation similar to the Hezbollah seizure last year of Israeli soldiers, which led the Israelis into invading Lebanon, to test how the British and Americans move military assets in advance of armed action? Is this a calculated measure due to Iranian claims that the waters are, in fact, Iranian and not Iraqi (a 1975 treaty gave the waters to Iraq, but Iran disputes Iraq’s jurisdiction)? Or is this the action of a local commander, unauthorized by leadership, and due to anything from bad navigation equipment (hard to believe but it happens), one too many drinks, or a misinterpretation of orders? Recall that (a) Iranian forces did something like this in 2004 and held British servicemen for three days, then released them, and (b) local commanders’ mistakes have had devastating consequences, such as the accidental American shoot-down of an Iranian civilian airliner in 1988.

The phone lines are burning up but nothing else should at this point. Interestingly, the price of crude oil, often a sound indication of international skittishness, has not shot up in reaction to the event. The Iranians have not issued any information on the event on the IRNA site. Let’s wait and watch.

(Hat tip: InstaPundit, who suggests a naval blockade — a response that would fall somewhere in between “harshly worded memo” and “nuke the bastards.” Sounds about right.)

Becky and I just got back from the DeBartolo, where we watched a screening of the documentary Screamers, part of Notre Dame’s spring film series of movies about genocide. And I must say, as movies about genocide go, Screamers is an odd one. It’s about 50 percent historical documentary about the Armenian genocide, 30 percent concert tour DVD for System of a Down, and 20 percent a mish-mash of other elements, including endless interviews with Harvard professor Samantha Power, who is apparently academia’s one and only expert on genocide.

[UPDATE: Here’s Becky’s review of the film. It’s kind of funny how we make a lot of the same points, though we didn’t talk about our respective reviews until both were finished — although we were sitting on the couch next to each other, writing them simultaneously. Heh. We’re such freaking nerds.]

[UPDATE 2: Welcome, InstaPundit readers! Please have a look around. If you don’t like college basketball, you may want to visit my Non-Sports Page instead of my homepage, as there are a whole lot of hoops-related posts right now. On the other hand, if you like hoops, go here for all my posts on Championship Week(s).]

The movie’s oddest moment occurred during one of the “concert tour DVD” segments. System of a Down (”SOAD” to the cool kids) is a metal band comprised of four grandchildren of Armenian genocide survivors, and they make it a point to educate their legions of fans about the oft-denied atrocity that killed off most of their ancestors. So, in the movie, we see them at one of their concerts, standing silently on stage while a mini-documentary about the genocide is played for concertgoers on a giant screen. In the background, we hear the typical sort of noises that you’d expect at a rock concert, including quite a bit of hooting and cheering, which is strange enough when it happens while a narrator is talking about the mass extermination of millions of people. But then came the strangest moment of all, when the face of one of the Turkish leaders who orchestrated the genocide appears on the screen. The crowd starts vigorously booing him, as if he’s some sports idol they don’t like. More than anything else, it reminded me of how the crowds at ESPN GameDay react when someone from the opposing team is shown on the screen. Yet here, the crowd was reacting not to a hated coach or quarterback, but to the architect of a crime against humanity. I suppose booing is better than cheering, but the reaction still seemed grossly inappropriate somehow. A negative reaction is of course appropriate, but they’re reacting to something so much weightier and more profound than a simple “boo” can possibly hope to express. It was just weird.

As for the substance of the movie… it had its moments, made some valid points, and of course the basic bottom-line message — that genocide is very bad, and that people who say “never again” but then let it happen again are hypocrites — is pretty much impossible to argue against. That said, I was struck by the naivete and, well, hypocrisy, actually, of many of the true believers. One bloke waiting in line for a SOAD concert in London said he likes the band because they’re “anti-Bush and anti-Blair,” like him. He asserted that this position is obviously correct because (this may not be a direct quote, but it’s close) “I’m anti-war in principle, and that’s something you can’t really argue against.” To which I could only think: “Oh, really? So I guess, since you’re ‘anti-war in principle,’ you would have been opposed to World War II as well? You know, the war that finally — far too late, of course — ended the Holocaust? Yeah, can’t really argue against that!”

(more…)

Joe Lieberman on Iraq:

I understand the frustration, anger and exhaustion so many Americans feel about Iraq, the desire to throw up our hands and simply say, “Enough.” And I am painfully aware of the enormous toll of this war in human life, and of the infuriating mistakes that have been made in the war’s conduct.

But we must not make another terrible mistake now. Many of the worst errors in Iraq arose precisely because the Bush administration best-cased what would happen after Saddam was overthrown. Now many opponents of the war are making the very same best-case mistake–assuming we can pull back in the midst of a critical battle with impunity, even arguing that our retreat will reduce the terrorism and sectarian violence in Iraq.

In fact, halting the current security operation at midpoint, as virtually all of the congressional proposals seek to do, would have devastating consequences. It would put thousands of American troops already deployed in the heart of Baghdad in even greater danger–forced to choose between trying to hold their position without the required reinforcements or, more likely, abandoning them outright. A precipitous pullout would leave a gaping security vacuum in its wake, which terrorists, insurgents, militias and Iran would rush to fill–probably resulting in a spiral of ethnic cleansing and slaughter on a scale as yet unseen in Iraq.

I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next. Instead of undermining Gen. Petraeus before he has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his troops the time and support they need to succeed.

Gen. Petraeus says he will be able to see whether progress is occurring by the end of the summer, so let us declare a truce in the Washington political war over Iraq until then. Let us come together around a constructive legislative agenda for our security: authorizing an increase in the size of the Army and Marines, funding the equipment and protection our troops need, monitoring progress on the ground in Iraq with oversight hearings, investigating contract procedures, and guaranteeing Iraq war veterans the first-class treatment and care they deserve when they come home.

We are at a critical moment in Iraq–at the beginning of a key battle, in the midst of a war that is irretrievably bound up in an even bigger, global struggle against the totalitarian ideology of radical Islamism. However tired, however frustrated, however angry we may feel, we must remember that our forces in Iraq carry America’s cause–the cause of freedom–which we abandon at our peril.

A plea to Lieberman-haters: Read the whole thing with an open mind, without automatically assuming the worst possible connotation or implication of every word. Give it a few moments of serious thought, without regard to the identity of the speaker. And then tell us why Lieberman is a dishonest warmongering chickenhawk neocon scumbag. That’s all I ask.

(Hat tip: Alasdair and Roger L. Simon, via InstaPundit.)

24 superman Jack Bauer is hunting down suitcase nukes in L.A., the heroes of Heroes are trying to stop a nuke from going off in New York, and the residents of a small town in Kansas are trying to figure out which cities got nuked, and who nuked ‘em, on CBS’s surprise hit Jericho (which resumes tomorrow with a one-hour recap at 8pm, then starts its second half-season in earnest next Wednesday). In sum, TV executives are discovering that nukes make for good TV.

Unfortunately, there’s news about nukes in the real world, too — some of it bad and some of it… well, you be the judge.

First, the unequivocally bad:

Iran will be able to develop enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear bomb and there is little that can be done to prevent it, an internal European Union document has concluded.

In an admission of the international community’s failure to hold back Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the document – compiled by the staff of Javier Solana, EU foreign policy chief – says the atomic programme has been delayed only by technical limitations rather than diplomatic pressure. “Attempts to engage the Iranian administration in a negotiating process have not so far succeeded,” it states.

Gee, ya think?

Speaking of negotiation and engagement, here’s the other news:

In a landmark international accord, North Korea promised Tuesday to close down and seal its main nuclear reactor within 60 days in return for 50,000 tons of fuel oil as a first step in abandoning all nuclear weapons and research programs.

That sounds like good news. But can we trust it, or will it lull us into a false sense of security? Let’s not forget what happened the last time we made a deal with North Korea to shut down its nuclear program. They took the “incentives” with one hand and kept secretly building nukes with the other. Can we be sure they won’t do the same thing again? Does this “landmark international accord” provide for meaningful oversight and muscular enforcement if Kim Taepodong Il doesn’t keep his end of the bargain? As usual, the devil’s in the details. And some of those don’t sound terribly encouraging:

North Korea also expressed willingness to accept the return of nuclear inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor what is going on at the reactor and other nuclear installations. But it said their work would be subject to agreement between the North Korean government and the U.N. nuclear agency, suggesting North Korea could exercise a veto power over their activities.

Good news or bad news? Only time will tell, methinks.

The AP reports:

A U.S. Army official confirmed a small explosion outside an American base south of Tokyo, but there were no reports of injuries or damage. An explosion was heard near the base late Monday, and police suspected an attempted attack on the base, Kyodo News agency reported. …

Police found parts of “launch pad” near the base, Kyodo said, and investigators suspected a “guerrilla attack.”

Meanwhile, there was definitely an attack in Baghdad — four attacks, actually — and at least 76 people are dead.

Apropos of which… Casey reviews Iraq in Fragments:

After absorbing so many numbing headlines from Iraq about massive bombings killing scores of innocents at a crack, I felt a need to connect more with the Iraqis. As our country had a part in creating the present conditions of mass suffering in Iraq, it would seem horribly feckless to turn a blind eye.

I have to say that this was possibly the scariest film I have ever seen in my life. It is clear to me from the film that we did not break Iraqi society. The society was already broken, held together only by the terrible force of an authoritarian dictator.

Later, the money quote: “The strident factionalism of Iraq is in some sense the stablest of political structures. It reinforces itself by tearing itself apart.” Read the whole thing.

Myself, I’d be a little more cautious about drawing sweeping conclusions regarding Iraqi and Arab society in general (and even moreso the “Arab mind”) on the basis of a movie which, while admirably non-didactic, nevertheless inevitably reflects the biases of its director, who had to make countless decisions about what to show and what not to show. This movie certainly feels like a window into the heart of Iraq (the heart of darkness, some might say), but it’s still a window with a gloss on it, and that gloss has the potential, at least, to distort. That’s not a criticism of this excellent movie, just a commentary on the inherent limitations of any on-screen portrayal of, well, anything, really.

That said, I certainly agree with Casey that the picture of Iraqi life painted by Iraq in Fragments does not exactly lend itself to optimism.

While I didn’t care much for the second movie that Becky and I watched today, I quite enjoyed the first: Iraq in Fragments, which we saw in the Browning Cinema at Notre Dame’s DeBartolo Center. It was visually stunning and very compelling. I particularly liked the third “fragment,” about the Kurds, who are sort of the forgotten group in most discussions of the situation over there. Wonderful, wonderful cinematography, and some great interviews. That’s true across the board, really.

I agree with the New York Times review, which says this “is not the kind of documentary that presents an analysis or argues, even implicitly, for a particular point of view. … [T]he film is not easily summarized as a text of hope or a brief for despair.” I don’t think it would have been as interesting if it had been either of those things. It’s much better as it is: “a collage of images, sounds and characters, an intimate, partial portrait of an unraveling nation — a portrait that gains power partly by virtue of its incompleteness.”

Anyway, it’s very much worth watching if you have a chance. Alas, it’s only playing in a very few places; see list here. (Apparently, the only three cities where it’s showing daily are Irvine, CA, Tucson, AZ and Rochester, NY.) More reviews can be found here.

For those of you who continue on defending the government’s action in holding people in Guantanamo and elsewhere without having to present any evidence whatsoever that they have committed a single act that would qualify them as a danger to the U.S. and beyond that without giving them a chance to defend themselves, I suggest you read the story of Adel Hammad, a man who was taken from his bed in the middle of the night and has been held at Guantanamo for the past 5 years. Thats right, he was NOT taken in the field of combat, but from his bed, in the middle of the night.

Toby Keith: antiwar activist?

(Hat tip: Sully.)

Yeah, well, Mr. Keith’s feline namesake continues to believe that taking out Saddam was worth the price.

I mentioned this in my State of the Union post, but, um… yikes:

North Korea is helping Iran to prepare an underground nuclear test similar to the one Pyongyang carried out last year.

Under the terms of a new understanding between the two countries, the North Koreans have agreed to share all the data and information they received from their successful test last October with Teheran’s nuclear scientists. …

A senior European defence official told The Daily Telegraph that North Korea had invited a team of Iranian nuclear scientists to study the results of last October’s underground test to assist Teheran’s preparations to conduct its own — possibly by the end of this year.

The test will be for “peaceful purposes,” I’m sure.