The Bright Glow of Farsi-Shine

Shiite Militias: “We Use Nothing But Iranian Super-Bombs”

Or so we have been told. Allegedly, the Shiite militias in Iraq rely exclusively on Iranian-made EFP’s. I can see the ad on Moqtada’s TV, like an American toothpaste commercial: (smilingly, black-outfitted JAMmie) “I use to use ordinary IEDs, but no more, I find I can kill 250% more infidels with new & improved Farsi-brand EFP’s.”

At the recent US military briefing about the Iranian mortar shells given to Iraqi Shiite militias, it was reported that these super-bombs have killed 170 US troops since June, 2004. I’m sure that Shiite IED’s have killed American troops in Iraq. How many overall? If the Iranian EFP’s have killed 170 Americans, what fraction is that of the total.

I checked ICC, and queried out US fatalities since June 1, 2004 involving IEDs. There were 969. I downloaded the results into Excel, and looked at the geography of the incidents, thus:
- 82 in Shiite areas (including Eastern Baghdad)
- 471 in Sunni areas (including Western Baghdad)
- 416 unknown (including other parts of Baghdad, those who died in hospitals, and other smaller towns in Iraq)
- 969 TOTAL

Of the 553 (82+471) where the sect of the attacker can be reliably inferred, 15% of these deadly IED attacks were committed by Shiites. Extrapolated to the full set, that would be 144 overall. That’s right. Only 144 Shiite-IED related deaths since June 2004.

But 144 is less than 170. Perhaps my estimate of 144 is a little low. How many were killed by Shiite IEDs then? 150? 170? 200? If any reasonable estimate of Shiite-IED-inflicted deaths is used, one can see that 170 is an incredibly disproportionate share.

In general, homemade IED’s can be made from all sorts of materials: raw explosives (like C4), hand grenades, mines, artillery shells, RPG’s, etc. If we accept the recent report, then Shiite militias have, since June 2004, abandoned all other explosive sources for IEDs, and use ONLY the Iranian super-bombs. I do not doubt for a second that the Iranians have been arming the Shiite militias. But the 170 deaths from EFPs does not add up.

Someone somewhere is “cooking the books,” or making sh*t up, because these numbers don’t add up. There is now way that ALL Shiite IED attacks are using the Iranian super-bombs. Given the Bush admin’s history of cooking the books and making sh*t up, I might assume that the whole military background briefing on this is bogus. There may very well be Iranian weapons in Iraq, that have been used to kill Americans.

But, if this type of IED has killed 170 Americans, then the Shiites must have stopped using every other explosive in their IEDs. And that conclusion strains credibility. Perhaps “cooking the books” is unfair. It’s easy to imagine that some analyst was asked to come up with a total, of which EFPs may be a large fraction, and, in the course of putting together presentations, the numbers were conflated. In either case, it is sad day when the President of the United States has damaged the credibility of his administration so badly, that in a case like this, I am more likely to believe the Holocaust-denying government of Iran.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. appletree » Blog Archive » Tuesday Small Hours Links on 13 Feb 2007 at 7:33 am

    […] The Commissar explains exactly what is wrong with the Bush administration’s accusations of Iranian support for Iraqi militants. Instead of trying to doubt the intelligence that was used to gather the conclusions, he shows why the conclusions themselves are implausible. At the recent US military briefing about the Iranian mortar shells given to Iraqi Shiite militias, it was reported that these super-bombs have killed 170 US troops since June, 2004. I’m sure that Shiite IED’s have killed American troops in Iraq. How many overall? If the Iranian EFP’s have killed 170 Americans, what fraction is that of the total. […]

Comments

  1. Grim wrote:

    One thing you may be missing is that “traditional” IEDs are no longer as effective. We are now destroying or disarming 50% of the IEDs we encounter in Iraq.

    In addition to those destroyed and disarmed, increased armor has cut the casualty rate from traditional IEDs sharply.

    Thus, it may well be the case that the bulk of casualties are coming from the newer, better explosives being provided.

    The other thing you may be missing is the accusation that Iran is providing arms to both sides of the conflict. In that case, the numbers don’t have to crunch quite along the lines you suggest. It could be that some Sunni bombs are using the Iranian weapons.

  2. commissar wrote:

    Grim,

    I was thinking similarly, but the intell report said “Shiite militias.”

    No matter how you slice it, it’s a stretch. As I noted in toward the end, I think some analyst’s numbers (roughly like mine) got conflated in the presentations.

    BTW, Gen. Pace is expressing skepticism, or at least ignorance, of this stuff.

  3. Grim wrote:

    Well, I wouldn’t be surprised if the report was wrong on a detail. The numbers may be right, but the attribution to Shiite militias solely is probably not right.

  4. commissar wrote:

    There are a couple of ways of looking at it, and we might agree.

    Like I said, it seems very likely that Iran is sending arms to Iraq.

    But the data in the intell report, 170 dead by means of Shiite IED’s, does not add up.

    I didn’t even get into whether it is in our interest to go to war with Iran. FWIW, I don’t think it is.

  5. Grim wrote:

    To go to war with Iran isn’t even on the table. We don’t have the troops right now for reconstruction.

    Punitive strikes against Iran, designed to raise the stakes of their involvement, is another question. Personally, I think negotiations are likely with Syria and Iran — but before they can be useful, we need to position ourselves. You want to negotiate from strength, and right now we can’t do that because the focus is on what we aren’t able to do. A quick reminder of what we can still do, and then we can open talks with the expectation that we’ll actually benefit from the diplomacy.

  6. commissar wrote:

    Grim,

    I hope you’re right. Until recently, I would have agreed with you, re: war with Iran not being on the table.

    I guess if anonymous intell reports with obvious flaws (perhaps in the ‘details’) pointing to Iran didn’t keep popping up, I’d be a little more sanguine.

    “Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”

  7. canuckistani wrote:

    I’m willing to bet the price of a pint of beer that Iran is attacked before the end of 2007. Probably not a full-scale invasion, but a few cruise missiles or special forces insertions just to delay nuclear development and cement the rule of the ayatollahs for the next 30 years.

    Personally, I don’t believe that the Iranians are involved in Iraq in any official (secret or otherwise) capacity, though I wouldn’t be shocked to hear that they are being deliberately careless about counting their mortar shells.

  8. M. Carey wrote:

    I wonder if the Japaneese, say in late November of 1941, would have contemplated a “punative strike”, say- with a few aircraft carriers against some American asset -Say a shipyard or a harbor somewhere…. Do you think that it would have simply stopped there? Or possibly, would the Americans have taken offense, and have done something nasty in return ? Could happen that way, you know.

  9. rbj wrote:

    What about these Steyr rifles Austria sold to Iran that are now turning up in Iraq:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JPKY4R41A1KIBQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/02/13/wiran13.xml

    (sorry for the long url — if you can just make it a link that would be better, not sure I can in the comments)

    They have also been blamed for 170 US deaths. Interesting that that number keeps popping up.

    And no, a full fledged war with Iran is not doable — nor even strikes against their nuke plants. The only option I see would be to take out the mullahs, which is really hard to do.

  10. P. Robinson wrote:

    Your statisctal analysis is faulted in the assumption that shiite militias sh*t in their backyards.
    An EFP is easy to emplace - you just take it out of trunk and set it on the ground. It kills everything in front of it when it detonates. Bombs do go off accidentally. No one wants an EFP in their neighborhood.
    Who is supplying them might be arguable, but the numbers are not.

  11. DavidC wrote:

    Canuckistani,

    “I’m willing to bet the price of a pint of beer that Iran is attacked before the end of 2007.”

    Let’s hope so, since we’ve basically been allowing them to fight a proxy war against us without penalty. But I’ll believe it when I see it. Apparently we haven’t even had the nerve to take action against Iranian agents operating in Iraq, until just recently. U.S. retaliation against Iran is long overdue, in my opinion. But we haven’t done anything so far. What makes you think we will now?

    M. Carey,

    Real impressive analogy and reasoning. The Empire of Japan vs. the U.S. 1941, and U.S. 2007 vs. Iran present so many similar strategic and military comparisons, right? And Iran might retaliate, therefore we shouldn’t take any military action against them. That’s a convincing argument.

    By the way, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was in no way a “punative strike.” It was an all-out attack by the main striking force of the Imperial Japanese Navy, aimed at the primary naval base of larger, more powerful country, in order to cripple their Pacific fleet.

  12. Grim wrote:

    I guess the one great unlearned lesson about Iraq is what to make of intel reports. I think a lot of people believed intelligence is a sort of esoteric truth, in which the initiated have secrets that are kept behind the walls of the societies. Thus, when the CIA or DIA let you in on one of their secrets, it was like being given a window into a truth that has been hidden.

    In fact, intelligence is a form of gambling. It offers no truths. What it offers are probability assessments.

    The best analogy for intel is stud poker (of which Texas Hold ‘em is a popular variant). You’ve got perfect knowledge only about your own cards; and you get glimpses of what the other fellow has. You can also try to read his face.

    So let’s say you’re in a hand of poker that you really need to win. You’ve got three of a kind, and you see from the cards on the table that your opponent has at least two pair, but each pair is lower than your three of a kind. Thus, if he also has three of a kind of either pair, you will win; but if he has a full house, you will lose.

    An intelligence assessment will provide an evaluation of the odds of him having a full house, and recommend a course of action. It will probably recommend that this is a good opportunity to raise the stakes and try for the pot, because:

    1) The most likely thing is that your opponent has two pair, and will lose.

    2) The second most likely thing is that you opponent has three of a kind of one of the two pair, and will lose.

    3) The probability of a full-house is very low.

    Now, if you act on that assessment and your opponent had a full house, the intel wasn’t wrong. It was as good as intel ever gets, even though you lost everything on the hand. Intelligence doesn’t offer truths, just probabilities.

    However, since the probabilities in war-related intel aren’t quantifiable the way they are in poker, you get estimates and analyses. You have to learn to read in the hidden, “We guess that probably…” in front of every claim.

    This is one reason that America — and probably including the Administration, relatively few of which had intel experience coming in — misread the Iraq intel. The reports should have been read as a poker estimate: the odds are that he may have some dangerous WMD. The fact that he proved to have little doesn’t change the fact that there were good odds he did.

    Because it didn’t prove true, people are down on intel. But intel is never “true” in the way that you’d like a news report to be true. It’s a gamble. It’s a best guess. Any lengthy intel report is going to be wrong factually at least a percentage of the time; and it may be entirely wrong, even though it is the best intelligence ever done by anyone ever.

    All intel can do is give you a notion of what the odds are. It can’t give you truth, just guesses. Sometimes, he’s going to have that full house they said he probably didn’t have.

    Because people have believed these agencies to be esoteric truth-finders rather than gamblers, we’ve gotten conspiratorial as a nation. Since we believe they have the capacity to know the truth, when they’re wrong, we ask: “Are they incompetent — or was this manipulation to sucker the People?”

    Once you get that they have no capacity to know the truth, it’s not shocking to learn their guesses were wrong here and there, or even everywhere. That’s the nature of the game.

  13. rbj wrote:

    Well put, Grim. I’ll only add that we had been caught short underestimating the Jihadist terrorist threats before Sept. 11. Thus, after those attacks, Bush did switch to a policy of erring on the side of caution — whereby if we thought there were good odds of WMD being somewhere, we were going to act on it.

  14. wolfwalker wrote:

    I suggest you rethink your analysis here, commissar. I can see at least three different probable sources of error in it.

    1) either you or one of your sources muddled the original report on number of Coalition soldiers killed. The 170 is the number of soldiers believed to have been killed by Iran-supplied weapons of all types. The EFPs are responsible for some fraction of that. The mortars are responsible for some fraction of that. The fifty-cal rifles are responsible for some fraction of that.

    2) the count of deaths due to IEDs at ICC gives a specific definition of “IED” that would rule out manufactured devices such as the Iranian EFPs. It also warns that not all deaths due to IEDs get reported as such. I would find out if those EFP-caused deaths are included in the IED stats before I used those numbers in any analysis.

    3) the location of a roadside bomb is not a reliable indicator of who planted it.

    I’m honestly surprised. You used to be a sharper thinker than this. I suppose that’s what comes of turning quisling — you feel such a desperate need to justify your change of coat that you start jumping to unsupported conclusions like any lefty. Using an op-ed by Glenn Greenwald as a source — sheesh!