From: javad@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Agha Javad)
Subject: Re: To Agha Javad , PART I
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:47:52 GMT
Organization: LabaniyyAtee-e-Sar-e-Koocheh

In article <BxxurD.Duq@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ebrahim@ee.umanitoba.ca (Mohamad Ebrahimi) writes:
>
>                  
>>>>In article <BxoFp0.Jwn@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ebrahim@ee.umanitoba.ca (Mohamad Ebra
>>>>mi) writes:
>>>>>                                                                             
>>>>>In article: <1992Nov13.184956.18043@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com>javad@hplabsz.hpl.hp.c
>>>>> (Agha Javad) writes:             
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------     
>>Before I go on, I would like to thank Mr. Ebrahi for maintaining a decent       
>>discussion so all interested readers can think and form opinions rather         
>>than hit the 'n' button in disgust and shake their head in disbelief. Thank     
>>you.                                                                            
>
>  I thank you for devotnig your time to talk about one of the most important
>  periods of our nation's life and trying to distinguish true from false in
>  it.
>
>>This is a long article, although most of the material is from                   
>>previous postings. 
>
>  For the same reason, I'll divide this article to several parts and add my
>  comments or answers, if any.
>                           
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>                                                      
>>>                                                               
>>>   
[previous stuff deleted]

>>                                                 
>>Reality, did you say?  The shah was criticized for trying to become gendarm     
>>of the region, whereas the IRI is now an a massive rearmament program.  This    
>>in spite of the absence of the U.S.S.R., the annihilation of Iraq,              
>>and the removal of so amny threats that existed in the Shah's time, as well     
>>as an economic situation which you yourself agree is very weak.  Why            
>>are they buying bombers and submarines?  I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just      
>>saying that how come it is bad when shah does it, but it is good when IRI       
>>does it?                         
>
>   The basis of your comparison is wrong. Iran is not 'a massive rearmament 
>   program' if you consider our neighbors like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan,
>   Turkey, etc. During 1991 our neighbors have bought $40 billion just from the
>   US and this amount was $35 billion for the first 9 months of 1992. Also noone
>   of these countries' armies had a war to sustain massive damages. By the cuurent 
>   trend of buying arms, Iran would be able to DEFEND itself against it's immediate
>   neighbors after a few years, provided our neighbours stop buying arms tomorrow
>   morning! I don't see how the threats during Shah could have been more than today. 
>   Preparing Iran's armed forces to DEFEND Iran is a duty for any government, and
>   failure to do that is nothing but treason and making conditions ready for
>   the likes of Saddam Hussein to come again and ask for their 'Arabestan', and
>   'Mohamareh'and 'Khafajieh' and 'Tonb-e bozorg va kochak', etc.

My point exactly.  The government of a country is to take seriously the defence
of the country, and set policies which are in the interest of national
security.  In the early years of the war, the gov't greatly decreased the
capability of the military, while at the same time, using sharp rhetoric
regarding exporting revolution, etc.  This is just reckless behavior, basically
talking big with a small stick.  What we should have heard from IRI leaders
was appeals for calm and desire for peaceful relations with neighboring 
countries, etc etc, and NOT calls for exporting revolution, etc.,  at least
not then when the country was in a state of disarray.  I'm not saying this 
would have stopped a nut like Saddam, but at least it would dramatically
improve IRI's political credibility around the world, setting the stage for
more solidarity with IRI and stronger negotiating positions in world bodies,
less difficulty in obtaining weapons to defend the country, etc. etc.
As far as today's rearmament program, true, I agree, it is necessary and
long overdue.  Our country has been sufferring from lack of air power
for a decade now, and we bitterly paid for it.  My point was that when
the shah did the same thing, he was criticized tremendously for "buying
all those weapons from his master USA".  Then, our threats were not just Iraq
and possibly gulf countries, but also Soviet Union.  I think it was reasonable
to try to work towards an independently strong military which had a chance
of defending the country against Soviet invasion a la Afghanistan, rather
than depend on the USofA as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait did.  Incidentally,
during the 1980's the US rapid deployment force's main mission was to stop
a Soviet invasion of Iran and to defend the oil fields in Khuzestan by bombing 
the hell out of the Zagros mountains, etc. This was all done without any regard
to Iran's territorial integrity/sovereignity, and is just proof once again
what a vulnerable position we are in and why we need to be strong.

>
>                
>>> -Yes Bazargan and Co. talked about being needless to even F14's and exchanging
>>> them with tractors, but I don't consider them as true representative of Revolu
>>> and IRI, do you?                                                                
>>                                                                                     
>   You are not getting the point again. I remember the reduction of army service

[stuff deleted]

>   conditions and the necessities of such a revolution, thinking in the most
>   optimistic way, and therefore took back their support from them.
>
>
But they did not take back their support form people who were advocating 
exporting the revolution and meddling in other countries.  They withdrew
support from one extreme, not both.  If Iran under shah went to Zofar
and was gendarm of region, IRI also went to Baalbek and was exporting
its revolution, both of these are foreign policy adventures which are
not in the interest of Iran's people.

>>> army, but he ordered for basij to be established more than 8 months later     
>>> in responce to western hostilities. IRI never intended to replace army with an
>>> other force, and I chalenge you to show evidence contrary to this mater.      
>>>                                                                               
>>                                                                                
>>This was in celebration or recognition of the army surrendering to the people.  
>>As this was happenning, pilots and homafars were being arrested and imprisoned  
>>in the hundreds, and billions of dollars of equipment was rusting away being    
>>unmaintained, some becoming beyond repair.  During the first few days of the    
>>war, several hundred pilots and flight officers were released from prison       
>>and were let loose, and they were able to carry out a massive airstrike of      
>>140 fighters against Iraq, seriously hampering the Iraqis effort.  Many of      
>>these pilots' families were held as ransom for their return, and in fact,       
>>throughout the war, some did escape because of their opposition to the          
>>regime.  But the majority fought braveley under unfair conditions without       
>>enough spare parts and ammunition, against an enemy wiht much more resources.   
>>I seriously doubt that had the war not started, these pilots would be spared    
>
>   Well, this one is pure interpretation and in such a case reasoning won't
>   solve anything. But just a few points, anyways:
[stuff deleted]

>
>   And, you are still repeating your allegations about the number of arrested officers
>   without any evidence. I mantain that no officer or even general was arrested
>   or procecuted, unless he has been involved in one or some of these activities:
>
>   -maintaining 25 years of dictatorship,
>
>   -suppressing people via SAVAK or Zed-e Etelaat,
>
>   -killing people during the months of revolution and martial law,
>
>   -stealing peoples money through their relationships with the regime.

What about those pilots that were freed in the beginning of the war? A
lot of them were just little kids in 1953, and were not guilty of any of
the above, and they fought and died and were taken prisoner for their
country.  Why were they arrested and imprisoned in the first place? You
and I both know they would not go free had there not been a terrible need
for them in the war effort.

As far as evidence that IRI wanted to replace army with sepah, I already
said and I'll say again that why is there so much overlap between army
and sepah?  Why did the sepah create its own "navy" and "air force" 
when the armed forces already had its own? The mere evolution of sepAh
into a military fighting force with armor and artillery shows that they
don't count on the regular army to undertake its rightful role. So 
basically, why do we have two armies, if they already trust the first one?

>
>>As far as baseej, yes, this was formed when hostages were taken, and IRI        
>>feared military action from the US, the regular army being in a state of        
>>disarray.  The sepAh and komiteh, however, were formed immediately after        
>>the revolution to safeguard protect the revolution, i.e. a revolutionary        
>>police.  The sepAh's duties grew as the war started, and their role expanded    
>>to defence against the revolution's external enemies as well.  I would like     
>>to add that whenever the IRI bought new weapons, it would give preference to    
>>the sepAh, and only for equipment that the sepAh could not operate would        
>>they give these weapons to the army.  The sepAh would get first cut at          
>>light arms, and later they started to expand into artillery pieces, and even    
>>form the "sepAh air force" and the "sepAh navy", entering direct competition    
>>with the regular armed forces.  This enough is evidence that the IRI wanted     
>>to slowly phase out the regular armed forces, why else would the sepAh have     
>>to have an air force and a navy?  Why did we need two armies to handle our      
>>artillery and rockets?  I remember Mohsen Rezaee the IRGC commander treating    
>>Sayyad Shirazi the regular army commander almost like a subordinate even        
>>on TV.                        
>
>   With all due respect, I think this has become too childish. "They gave the good
>   ones to Sepah and the bad ones to army", etc. 
>
>   I don't call the friendly and close relationship between Rezaee and Sayyad Shirazi
>   as such. I remember Shirazi calling Rezaee as Mohsen and Rezaee calling Sayyad
>   as Ali in the TV. In fact, the superb agreement and coordination between these two
>   guys was very effective in making the cooperation between army and sepah work
>   during the years 1360 and 1361, and also during the last days of war, when MKO
>   under the support of Iraqi air force and artiliary atacked Iran.
>
>   By the way, Sayyad was the commander of army's ground force, while Rezaee was
>   and is the chief commander of whole sepah, and therefore technicaly in a higher
>   rank.

The whole sepah was a ground force only, except for a minor air and sea 
element which the army had as well, and was better anyway.  (army is
"nirooye-zamini, not artesh. army had havanirroz, etc. as well) 
So Rezaie was not a higher rank.  You cannot deny that sepah was given 
preference over the army.  Yes, as time went on, sepah and army learned to 
coordinate more, but that is besides the point.  The fact is that the sepah was
being grown into a military force with roles traditionally taken on by
the army, and they were taking over the tasks of the army wherever they
could, e.g. artillery, light armor, etc.

>
>
>   Thank you.
>                                                      
>Mohammad