"The Salvador Option"

Brian Doherty | January 10, 2005

Iraq has been such a success, think some in the Pentagon, (note: irony) that all we need now for complete victory are some El Salvador-style Special Forces-organized but Iraqi-run assasination and kidnap squads, says this Newsweek report. Iraqi intel chief Maj. Gen. Muhammad Abdallah al-Shahwani is said to be a big fan of the idea. What benefits might the scheme bring?

One military source involved in the Pentagon debate agrees...that new offensive operations are needed that would create a fear of aiding the insurgency. "The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists," he said. "From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation."

Comments

|1.10.05 @ 4:55PM|#

So when do we start killing American nuns in Iraq?

fyodor|1.10.05 @ 4:56PM|#

Looks like I get to be the first to say: we had to destroy the village in order to save it!

gaius marius|1.10.05 @ 5:02PM|#

this, i might note, is almost exactly what mr junyo countenances:

They've reacted as they have because we've created a false risk economy; when faced with the choice of whether or not to aid an insurgent, the citizen is faced with the explicit threat to life and limb if they refuse, accompanied by an at best an abstract promise of a long term payoff. When faced with the choice of whether or not to aid the occupiers, the citizen realizes that essentially no threat is faced from the occupiers for refusal, versus a significantly higher risk of reprisal from insurgents if they agree. In such an environment, the smart thing to do is to aid the insurgents, and wil remain so as long as we represent a greater real threat to wrong addresses than we do to the ground level infrastructure of the insurgents.

so congratulations, mr junyo. you're apparently on whatever sadistic wavelength saddam's former special forces chieftain is.

this entire bit of imperial adventurism has become an exercize in morbid irony. in order to "free" the people, we have to reinstitute saddam's fascist police state.

|1.10.05 @ 5:04PM|#

Nuns are agents of the Great Beast in Rome. You don't believe me? I have photographic proof of them cavorting with Satan in the form of a black cat!

|1.10.05 @ 5:09PM|#

Sounds like a plan to me, so long as it is executed efficiently, and the overwhelmingly high potential for PR nightmares is mitigated.

soccerdad|1.10.05 @ 5:11PM|#

Well using "Shock and Awe" in Fallujah worked so well. I guess losing a city, your home, relatives doesn't constitute a price.

Are these people completely brain dead? They don't learn from the lessons that are staring them in the face.

|1.10.05 @ 5:12PM|#

"The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists," he said. "From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation."

However true that might be, it is still interesting to note that originally we went over there to liberate the Iraqis, because living under tyranny is what causes people to engage in terrorism against the US. So we were going to do this grand transformation.

But now we've decided that some of the people we set out to liberate are an enemy that must be cowed into submission. And we're no longer talking about a handful of Baathists or other direct beneficiaries of Saddam Hussein's rule. No, we're talking about an entire religious group comprising 20% of the population. (I know, not everybody in that 20% is an enemy, but the article says that we have to scare that 20% so they go from doing nothing to doing something for us.)

And the talk is of using Kurds and Shia Arabs to go after Sunnis. Is it just me, or are our idiot leaders proposing to further deepen Iraq's divisions and ruin any chance of Iraq becoming a country at peace with itself and the outside world?

Who knows, maybe this will work. Then again, it could just as easily make Sunnis even more angry at the US (is hatred for America still what motivates terrorism, or has that talking point changed?), meanwhile we could find ourselves arming Shia forces that we have to fight down the road when they turn out to be friendly with Iran. I think something kind of similar happened in Afghanistan.

This is what happens when you try to impose a utopian project on a deeply divided society.

|1.10.05 @ 5:15PM|#

thoreau,

Daily our actions come closer and closer to those of Saddam it seems.

|1.10.05 @ 5:15PM|#

Oh, and let me guess what the response will be: People will say that I need to grow up and stop whining and live in the real world where not everything works out perfectly. And don't I realize that we're at war?

All I know is that history offers some very sobering lessons for this sort of thing. It's all well and good to talk about how great it will be if this works. The problem is that it rarely works, when it fails it tends to fail spectacularly, and even when it "works" the cost can be pretty bloody.

gaius marius|1.10.05 @ 5:17PM|#

i told mr kwais on the other thread that i didn't take seriously the idea that we would institute a stalinist murder state in iraq as a means of ending the insurgency.

for the record: i was wrong, mr kwais. we would.

|1.10.05 @ 5:18PM|#

Can't we just offer moola for information? The better the information, the bigger the pot? That seemed to work somewhat for the deck of evil doers we had.

|1.10.05 @ 5:18PM|#

thoreau,

You must take the attitude of Tyler Durden: "To make an omelette you have to break a few eggs."

His name is Robert Paulson.

His name is Robert Paulson.

His name is Robert Paulson.

His name is Robert Paulson.

|1.10.05 @ 5:30PM|#

I read elsewhere that the Iraqis have been using an old Arab slogan to describe their country now that we've come in and liberated them from the torturing old police state of Saddam: "Same donkey, different saddle."

But of course, let me say that our saddle trimmings are MUCH nicer than Saddam's were. Thoreau would say this sarcastically; others would and will use it as a somber justification of everything we've done and are doing over there since the beginning. Abu Ghraib and all.

|1.10.05 @ 5:30PM|#

if memory serves, a certain figure from the 80s in the general area of El Salvador (Honduras?), Mr. Negroponte is our man in Iraq...

|1.10.05 @ 5:31PM|#

Of course, maybe W.'s daddy will have a mitigating influence on his son's policies, and the Iraqis will get kinder, gentler death squads. . . .

|1.10.05 @ 5:35PM|#

How many mistakes will our government have to repeat before self-described conservatives and libertarians realize that you cannot transform the world into a safer place simply with guns and good intentions?

I know this forum has a lot of atheists, but the Serenity Prayer seems a good one here:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

We cannot change an unstable region into a liberal and peaceful place simply by invading with good intentions. Our leaders need the wisdom to accept that fact. Liberalization can happen in the Middle East, but it will have to come from within.

|1.10.05 @ 5:38PM|#

Thoreau-
I don't believe in God but I wish SOMETHING would give these fools some wisdom. Forget the 'wisdom to tell the difference;' I'd be happy if those in charge and their apologists had just ONE of the three you mentioned.

|1.10.05 @ 5:40PM|#

The idea is not to get out of Iraq or anyplace, but to make the region and the world unfriendly to terrorists, by making life extremely difficult in that occupation. The best place for the operational personel is wherever they can do the most to make terrorism unpleasant to terrorists.

Mathmatically, you want to change the environment so the growth rate of terrorism is everywhere negative.

It's not the same as stamping out terrorism, more like extinguishing it. It may smolder for a while but it will stop on its own, once the change is accomplished.

So, in short, you're not evaluating Iraq correctly; and you're not seeing the potential elsewhere of helping out the effort.

It isn't Vietnam. We weren't stamping out communism but containing it. This is something different; something is being changed.

Bush's certainty that it will work is determination: it had better work.

Because plan B is much more unpleasan

|1.10.05 @ 5:41PM|#

This plan guarantees at least another decade of warfare there of course.

spur,

Yes, Negroponte was ambassador to the Honduran government. And its not true that the Salvadoran government broke the insurgency; indeed, once GHWB cut-off aid to the Salvadoran government, El Salvador's new President - Cristiani - was forced to go to the table with the insurgents. This didn't stop the FMLN from committing itself to a nation-wide co-ordinated offensive in 1990 that reinforced the government's desire to "talk." Eventually this talking ended in a peace agreement in 1992.

El Salvador remains a fairly destitute, violence-ridden society.

|1.10.05 @ 5:42PM|#

Because plan B is much more unpleasan

What is plan B?

|1.10.05 @ 5:43PM|#

thoreau,

I thought we were on Plan Q already. :)

Mark Bahner|1.10.05 @ 5:44PM|#

"Can't we just offer moola for information? The better the information, the bigger the pot? That seemed to work somewhat for the deck of evil doers we had."

We can do better than that. We can essentially all of our "grunts" out of Iraq (leaving only air force and selected officers).

Then we can pay can pay 1 million Iraqis (including 100,000+ women) as police officers, authorizing them to carry sufficient firepower (e.g. AK-47s) so that they are not ridiculously out-gunned. The payment can average $6,000 a year ($500 a month), and it will only cost us $6 billion per year. That $500 a month is more than most Iraqi *doctors* make, so we're talking about some serious money (for Iraqis).

When ***we*** pay Iraqi police (and pay them extremely well) we can be picky about who we choose. And we can punish simply by cutting off pay (and finding replacements).

If we were paying $6 billion a year into the Iraqi economy, that would be on the order of 20-40% of their national income. The fact that we have 1 MILLION people in our pay would guarantee that we have more "boots on the ground" than the insurgents.

We could put a time limit on the payment of two years. After that, the Iraqi government would have to do things on its own.

This is a simple plan. It will work. And it will cost the same or less than what we're currently doing, because we can pull so many soldiers (especially National Guard units) out of Iraq.

http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2004/09/a_7_billion_sol.html

P.S. Note: The "$7 billion solution for Iraq" would go up to a "$14 billion solution for Iraq" if we are talking about paying 1 million Iraqis, versus the 500,000 that's mentioned in the "$7 billion dollar solution."

|1.10.05 @ 5:44PM|#

Gary, I'm still waiting for us to try plan #9. (it's from outer space!)

|1.10.05 @ 5:46PM|#

I like Mark's idea. Even if we pony up for the equipment it would still be a lot cheaper than what we're doing now, in money AND in lives.

|1.10.05 @ 5:47PM|#

"And the talk is of using Kurds and Shia Arabs to go after Sunnis. Is it just me, or are our idiot leaders proposing to further deepen Iraq's divisions and ruin any chance of Iraq becoming a country at peace with itself and the outside world?"

I think we're already there. The vast majority of the Iraqi National Guard troops involved in operations within the Sunni Arab regions have been Kurdish or Shia Arab.

From the looks of things, I think we've reached a point where the only way to pacify the "Sunni Triangle" is to kill about 5% of the local population (and a larger share of the adult male population). After all the mayhem and carnage of the last two years, we're less than a fifth of the way there.

Anyone think the American people will stand for another decade of this madness? Or that Rummy's overstretched, "transformed" military will be able to bear the burden? Me neither. Which is why the Kurds and the Shia, playing under a much looser set of rules than the US, will be given the job. All the while the US prays that the Kurds don't declare independence and that the Shias don't give us the boot and declare an Islamic Republic, the latter of which would inevitably lead the Kurds to declare independence.

Let the good times roll...

|1.10.05 @ 5:48PM|#

I'd be on board with Mark's plan if I thought it would have a definite end date. But you know how government programs tend to perpetuate. Even when they "end", they usually pop up in some other guise.

I mean, for God's sake, we still have a Bureau of Indian Affairs!

If we do Mark's plan, in 100 years we'll still be funding the Iraqi military and police.

Kevin Carson|1.10.05 @ 5:48PM|#

thoreau,

Iraq's been fucked up. And one thing's for sure--somebody's responsible!

|1.10.05 @ 5:53PM|#

A few days ago somebody expressed the fear that a Shia government might invite Iranian troops to help quell the Sunni insurgency. In that case, Iraq could be to Iran what Lebanon is to Syria.

The most likely scenario? Probably not. Plausible enough to worry me? Absolutely.

No matter what we do, the most likely scenarios are all very bad. I'm going to put the next sentence in big bold letters so the self-described conservatives and libertarians who supported this fiasco don't miss it:

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU SUPPORT UTOPIAN SCHEMES!!!!!

|1.10.05 @ 6:03PM|#

Thoreau-
What if someone proposed, say, full funding for ten years followed by half-funding for five, with a strict sunset provision?

|1.10.05 @ 6:04PM|#

Forgot to add, that would STILL be cheaper than what we've got now, and probably more likely to work.

Mark Bahner|1.10.05 @ 6:04PM|#

Jennifer writes, "Even if we pony up for the equipment it would still be a lot cheaper than what we're doing now, in money AND in lives."

I like better the idea of just paying Iraqis a whole bunch of money, and letting them buy their own "equipment" (most importantly, their own guns). With 1 million Iraqis bring their own guns, that raises the price of guns significantly. We also can't be accused of making matters worse if the police with guns turn out to be "bad apples." (Whereas if we buy their guns, we are arming the insurgents.)

thoreau writes, "I'd be on board with Mark's plan if I thought it would have a definite end date."

Yes, in my plan, it is stated BEFOREHAND that the limit is 2 years, with no negotiations. After that, the Iraqi government is responsible.

"If we do Mark's plan, in 100 years we'll still be funding the Iraqi military and police."

Like I said, BEFOREHAND we would state the conditions. But let's look at it this way...we STILL have troops in Germany and in and around Japan. But neither country has degenerated into a dictatorship, and neither is likely to do so. So the costs need to be weighed against the benefits. (Note: I'm not saying that we should still have troops in Germany or in and around Japan. We shouldn't. But worse things could have happened if we hadn't left troops in those countries after WWII.)

Mark Bahner|1.10.05 @ 6:09PM|#

Jennifer writes, "What if someone proposed, say, full funding for ten years followed by half-funding for five, with a strict sunset provision?"

No. Two years, no extension. (Maybe I could be talked into three, but probably not.) Ten years is way too long. They need to learn how to run their country on their own. And fast.

Tim Cavanaugh|1.10.05 @ 6:10PM|#

Praise Allah, Mark Bahner has turned on the light at the end of the tunnel. That plan's a stroke of genius. But I have one question:

Shouldn't we have done all this before invading the country?

Mark Bahner|1.10.05 @ 6:15PM|#

"THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU SUPPORT UTOPIAN SCHEMES!!!!!"

Maybe Iraq was somebody's "Utopian scheme." But any objective analysis of the situation in Iraq (and the Middle East) before the U.S. invasion was that the situation was completely broken.

Look at the Freedom House (political/civil liberties) and Heritage Foundation (economic liberty) rankings for Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc., prior to the invasion.

Mark Bahner|1.10.05 @ 6:20PM|#

Tim Cavanaugh asks, "Shouldn't we have done all this before invading the country?"

Yeah, Tim...if only my mom was President! ;-) (I'd settle for Secretary of Advice on Important Matters.) ;-)

|1.10.05 @ 6:31PM|#

Plan B is we kill them all, say one day when a repeatable nuclear attack on a US city happens.

The problem is that modern weapons are too dangerous to have terrorists around.

So we can't have that any longer. No terrorist networks, no nothing.

So we set about making things so that terrorist networks have a really hard time surviving, through local opposition, through a loser-8th-century reputation, through anything that will work.

It is fair to say that the Iraqis favoring freedom are fighting for our democracy as well as their own.

When the Iraqis have it in hand themselves, then we'll go somewhere else where things are less in hand, and start again there.

A certain reputation for determination, and fairness, and things coming out well, makes things easier each time.


Leaving is not our goal. Setting up an environment in the region that's hostile to terrorism and tyranny in general is our goal

|1.10.05 @ 6:35PM|#

Plan B is we kill them all

Who's "them all"? All Arabs?

|1.10.05 @ 6:41PM|#

"Plan B is we kill them all"

WHY the hell are we over there again?

Mark Bahner|1.10.05 @ 6:42PM|#

"When the Iraqis have it in hand themselves, then we'll go somewhere else where things are less in hand, and start again there."

Ron, it would have to be done so much better than how it's been done so far! Go read some of the blogs by Iraqis. Our troops are accidently killing so many almost-certainly-innocent people!

http://astarfrommosul.blogspot.com/

http://kurdo.blogspot.com/

|1.10.05 @ 6:45PM|#

"The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists," he said. "From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation."

If the biggest threat to the long term stability and prosperity of Iraq is balkanization--and it is--how could arming ethnic death squads possibly be the answer?

For goodness sake!

El Salvador is one example of such an experiment gone awry--Columbia is probably a better comparison. They're still trying to disarm those guys!

"Then we can pay 1 million Iraqis (including 100,000+ women) as police officers, authorizing them to carry sufficient firepower (e.g. AK-47s) so that they are not ridiculously out-gunned."

I'm skeptical that we can find and train a million Iraqis who will remain steadfast in the face of insurgency. We haven't trained anywhere near that number of Iraqi troops yet, but, the few we have trained--and I would think the ones we chose to train first would be the most likely candidates for success--have not performed well when called upon. Many of them, once deployed, joined the insurgency!

...Without our direct leadership, is it more or less likely that American trained Iraqi troops will do what we want them to do?

Even if a large number of American trained Iraqis were, somehow, able to form a cohesive force, I don't understand why we would expect that force to act much differently than the Salvadoran death squads did. Arming an ethnic force to squash the hundreds of thousands of Sunni civilians who support the insurgency isn't going to win the hearts and minds of Muslims anywhere--isn't that ridiculous dream still intact?

...Or are we just carving ourselves out a bloody empire now?

P.S. I'm starting to wonder if Iran might do a better job. I'm starting to wonder if a three state solution isn't inevitable. If it is, I wa-wa-wa-wa-wonder if, rather than fighting it, we wouldn't be better off making it happen.

Mark Bahner|1.10.05 @ 6:47PM|#

"Leaving is not our goal. Setting up an environment in the region that's hostile to terrorism and tyranny in general is our goal."

We *have* to leave, in order to set up any "environment that's hostile to terrorism." The terrorism in Iraq simply won't ever stop if it can reasonably be claimed that the "insurgents" are fighting against the U.S. It *has* to be clear to everyone that the "insurgents" are battling a freely elected democratic government.

Mark Bahner|1.10.05 @ 6:54PM|#

"I'm skeptical that we can find and train a million Iraqis who will remain steadfast in the face of insurgency."

That's damn good money. But if we can't find a million, find 500,000, and pay them double that $6,000 per year. That's *$12,000* per year!

P.S. I'm also throwing $1 billion a year for death benefits. The death benefits would be on the order of $20,000.

|1.10.05 @ 6:57PM|#

Ronald, you are a strange and frightening man and you have my pity.

A certain reputation for determination, and fairness, and things coming out well, makes things easier each time.

"Makes things easier." You make it sound as if we have something other than a steady string of failures during the past 18 or so nation-building projects we've been involved in during the 20th century. What exactly are you basing this wonderful theory on?

Plan B is we kill them all, say one day when a repeatable nuclear attack on a US city happens.

Uh huh. Because of course we'll know who did it right? Will we be nuking Indonesia as well? I know they're not in the middle east but they're the largest Muslim population and besides, you can't be too careful.

|1.10.05 @ 6:58PM|#

The biggest threat to Iraq is the supremecist attitude of the Sunni's. There were originally two possibilities for Iraq: Perpetual Sunni dictatorship, or civil war. We presented the country with a third choice. The Kurds, eagerly, and the Shias, reluctantly took it. The Sunnis refused. They can no longer have supremacy, so it has to be civil war. Massive violence on our part could make that war short, while keeping the Iranians from getting too deeply involved. Pull out and all hell breaks loose. The same hell that would have broken our anyways if we hadn't invaded, since option one i mentioned above, perpetual Sunni domination is practiaclly impossible.

gaius marius|1.10.05 @ 6:59PM|#

Plan B is we kill them all, say one day when a repeatable nuclear attack on a US city happens.

allow me to paraphrase mr hardin: do anything you want. there is no limit. i'll vote for you, dubya. because i love you.

The problem is that modern weapons are too dangerous to have terrorists around

wadr, mr hardin, the problem seems to be that modern weapons are too dangerous to have neoconservatives around.

Mark Bahner|1.10.05 @ 6:59PM|#

"I'm skeptical that we can find and train a million Iraqis who will remain steadfast in the face of insurgency. We haven't trained anywhere near that number of Iraqi troops yet, but, the few we have trained--and I would think the ones we chose to train first would be the most likely candidates for success--have not performed well when called upon. Many of them, once deployed, joined the insurgency!"

Yes, because WE haven't paid them. They are paid by the Iraqi central government. And I can guarantee you they don't make anywhere near $6,000 a year! If WE pay them, they answer to us.

And if we leave Iraq, the "insurgents" are fighting their own people. That becomes an unambiguous fact. While we're in Iraq, the "insurgents" will always have the excuse that they aren't targeting Iraqis, just the U.S.

|1.10.05 @ 7:01PM|#

"That's damn good money. But if we can't find a million, find 500,000, and pay them double that $6,000 per year. That's *$12,000* per year!"

The last I heard, we'd trained approximately 4,000, and those were the troops that betrayed us.

I hear your argument, but if we can't find and train 4,000 Iraqi troops that won't betray us, how are we going to get to the number of troops you're calling for?

Mark Bahner|1.10.05 @ 7:04PM|#

"You make it sound as if we have something other than a steady string of failures during the past 18 or so nation-building projects we've been involved in during the 20th century. What exactly are you basing this wonderful theory on?"

C'mon. Let's be honest.

Germany. (East vs West Germany...you honestly can't tell which one was better?)

Japan (an absolutely solid liberal democracy).

South Korea vs North Korea. (Again, no contest.)

Even (I hate to admit this myself)...Panama. Panama under Noreiga versus Panama now.

And also (again, I hate to admit) Grenada.

gaius marius|1.10.05 @ 7:04PM|#

The biggest threat to Iraq is the supremecist attitude of the Sunni's.

mr white, i think you're missing the forest. it should've been clear a long time ago that the biggest threat to iraq is... yep, the united states. if it wasn't clear long ago, it should be now that we're putting together death squads.

gaius marius|1.10.05 @ 7:07PM|#

Yes, because WE haven't paid them. They are paid by the Iraqi central government. And I can guarantee you they don't make anywhere near $6,000 a year! If WE pay them, they answer to us.

mr bahner, i want your plan to be real. but i think the truth is that some would take some money for a while -- and give it up the minute trouble was afoot. if you can make two years pay in two months, you stick out the two months and give it up.

in the end, money ain't worth dying for -- for most people, anyhow.

|1.10.05 @ 7:08PM|#

Although it could be reasonably argued that South Korean democracy came about largely in spite of the United States...

Mark Bahner|1.10.05 @ 7:09PM|#

"The last I heard, we'd trained approximately 4,000, and those were the troops that betrayed us."

Geez, Ron, they didn't ALL "betray us." Some of them fought and died alongside our troops! (In fact, I'm almost certain that more Iraqi police and Iraqi National Guard troops have been killed in the last year than U.S. troops. So cut them a bit of frikkin' slack!)

But again, the key thing is that we may have trained them...but we didn't PAY them. (And pay them well!) So they didn't answer to us.

Also, we are still IN Iraq. It's a legitimate claim that they don't want foreign troops on their soil.

Mark Bahner|1.10.05 @ 7:10PM|#

Sorry, my last comment was in response to Ken Shultz's comment, not Ron Hardin's.

Mark Bahner|1.10.05 @ 7:14PM|#

"mr bahner, i want your plan to be real."

It *is* real. If only my Mom was President--or my Dad, but I think he's totally burned out on politics--we'd be doing it right now.

In fact, perhaps the Reason editors can use their extensive contacts in the Bush Administration to get the plan implemented. If it works, they can take credit. In the highly unlikely event it doesn't work, they can blame me.

Mark Bahner (not a nut)

Mark Bahner|1.10.05 @ 7:21PM|#

gaius marius writes, "in the end, money ain't worth dying for -- for most people, anyhow."

gaius, we have some DAMN fine young men and women dying in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I remember back to Gulf War I, when one of the local kids near Roanoke, Virginia was killed. The guy was like high school class president, valedictorian, captain of the football team, first in his class at ***Virginia Military Academy***. In other words, we simply don't make better young men than he was. Killed by a land mine.

People in Iraq wouldn't be joining the police to *die*. They'd be joining to make their country a better place. And they'd be getting paid top dollar (with incredibly large death benefits to their families) to do so.

If we in the U.S. can get such fine people in our military as we have today, I have no doubt that Iraq could get equally fine people, paying them (on a relative scale) probably 5 times what our soldiers get.

|1.10.05 @ 7:22PM|#

I'm warming to the One Million Iraqi Employee Plan. I would like to see all those Iraqi employees be women. Let them civilize their husbands and boyfriends by training them to do the work of an American man: take the garbage to the curb each week, change the oil in the wife's car every 3000 miles and hold the wife's purse while she shops for shoes. Iraqi men will become pathetic losers attempting to maintain their masculinity by drinking beer and watching NASCAR every weekend.

Mark Bahner|1.10.05 @ 7:27PM|#

"I would like to see all those Iraqi employees be women."

I said 100,000 of them being women (out of 1 million). I could boost it up to 200,000 or 300,000...or even to ~50%. But to make them ALL women would be pretty darn hard, I'd think. And it would be going way beyond making a point.

There are a lot of good men who served in the Iraq military (mainly because virtually EVERY man served in the Iraq military, due to conscription). It would be foolish to deliberately snub them.

gaius marius|1.10.05 @ 7:28PM|#

i'd like to point out a couple of recently contested points that the article should put to rest even among the most blind of hawks:

1) that the insurgency doesn't have significant de facto popular support which makes it largely impervious to our tactics:

Shahwani also said that the U.S. occupation has failed to crack the problem of broad support for the insurgency. The insurgents, he said, "are mostly in the Sunni areas where the population there, almost 200,000, is sympathetic to them." He said most Iraqi people do not actively support the insurgents or provide them with material or logistical help, but at the same time they won't turn them in. One military source involved in the Pentagon debate agrees that this is the crux of the problem, and he suggests that new offensive operations are needed that would create a fear of aiding the insurgency.

2) that things aren't very bad and getting worse:

the fact that it is being discussed at all is a measure of just how worried Donald Rumsfeld really is. "What everyone agrees is that we can?t just go on as we are," one senior military officer told NEWSWEEK. "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing." Last November's operation in Fallujah, most analysts agree, succeeded less in breaking "the back" of the insurgency, as Marine Gen. John Sattler optimistically declared at the time, than in spreading it out.

gaius marius|1.10.05 @ 7:31PM|#

fwiw, it would also seem to put an end to the fallacy that DoD expects things to get better post-january 30. if anyone there really expected a letup after the "election", they wouldn't have to countenance this atrocity.

Mark Bahner|1.10.05 @ 7:34PM|#

"Although it could be reasonably argued that South Korean democracy came about largely in spite of the United States..."

I don't opponents of the current North Korean government would agree with you. Of course, most of them are dead, so they wouldn't say much.

|1.10.05 @ 7:36PM|#

Mark Bahner,

The U.S. didn't liberalize any of those nations; they did it on their own (why anyone buys into the phony "Marshall Plan," etc. propagada I don't know). Indeed, if South Korea is a model, expect another fifty years before prosperity then. Japan and Germany were both prosperous, successful nations before the U.S. got involved in either (its why they are the outliers).

And Panama remains a third-world craphole.

If you were to compare America's various occupations you would find that most ended with sub-optimal outcomes.

SR,

Definately. The last thing the U.S. encouraged in South Korea was liberal and democratic governments. We much perferred the military juntas.

|1.10.05 @ 7:36PM|#

We cannot change an unstable region into a liberal and peaceful place simply by invading with good intentions.
Nor can you do it with inaction. In a volatile region that can threaten our interest and has been politically and culturally stagnant for centuries they don't get the luxury of change on their time own schedule. Would anyone care to offer a plan for a direct path from a minority oligarchy that doesn't care to be displaced to a functional representative democratic republic thats nice a smooth? Without a history of accountable, reasonable government expecting the Iraqis to simply realize that democracy is freakin' awesome, especially the Sunnis for whom it represents a loss of power no matter how you slice it, is naive, and so are all the people here that thought we'd waltz in and be home by the weekend. I certainly never thought so, and don't know many pro-war people that thought so either. And it should've been forseeable that governmental authority in the near term would come from the barrel of a gun rather than the rule of law, because that is the nature of existence, and the very thing that needs changing.

White America came to grips with the end of segregation at gunpoint, in a country with more than a century of the tradition of law. Does anyone seriously believe that the Sunnis would've ever just rolled over and handed over or shared power without a fight? So yeah, let's not mince words; to affect change some of them need to die, some need to be cowed, and the reasonable ones need to be encouraged to participate, because while it's not an ideal start, it's at least start, which is a damn sight better than continuing to reap the output of the "stability at any cost" doctrine we've pursued for the last 50 years.

Yes, because WE haven't paid them. They are paid by the Iraqi central government. And I can guarantee you they don't make anywhere near $6,000 a year! If WE pay them, they answer to us.
Exactly how much control would we exercise over barely trained troops with no one in country below a Lt. Col; essentially a single American supervisor for several hundred people assuming a full strength infantry battalion? Not that I'm criticizing the idea, I think it's great, but I'm also thinking that after an attack on a Kurdish unit in Sunni province, we'd spontaneously get exactly the kind of death squads that seem to horrify people so greatly. How does your proposal insure that they fight restrained and professionally, which apparently is very important? Where would the facilities to get 500,000 people through basic come from?

|1.10.05 @ 7:38PM|#

Mark Bahner,

South Korea succeeded as a liberal state despites America's best efforts to support the various dictators that ruled there, and despite America's silence on massacres perpetrated by the South Korean government.

|1.10.05 @ 7:39PM|#

Anyway, its important to point out that this tactic failed in El Salvador. Why they want to re-tread a failed policy from the 1980s I can't say.

Mark Bahner|1.10.05 @ 7:40PM|#

"1) that the insurgency doesn't have significant de facto popular support which makes it largely impervious to our tactics:"

I still deny that the "insurgency" has "significant de facto popular support."

The Iraqi Defense Minister said 200,000 people. That's only 1 in 100 Iraqis. The people who are silent definitely don't necessary support the insurgents. They're just scared. It is beyond question that the insurgents are unbelievably violent people. They have proved that they will kill anyone.

Mark Bahner|1.10.05 @ 7:42PM|#

"South Korea succeeded as a liberal state despites America's best efforts to support the various dictators that ruled there, and despite America's silence on massacres perpetrated by the South Korean government."

Yeah, and look what a worker's paradise NORTH Korea is! I don't expect you'll find most South Koreans dreaming of immigrating to North Korea.

Mark Bahner|1.10.05 @ 7:49PM|#

"The U.S. didn't liberalize any of those nations; they did it on their own (why anyone buys into the phony "Marshall Plan," etc. propagada I don't know)."

Gary, I challenge you to find *any* expert on Japan who will claim that the U.S. didn't have a significant positive effect on liberalizing Japan!

"And Panama remains a third-world craphole."

Look at Panama's Freedom House political and civil liberties rankings before and after the 1989-1990 U.S. invasion:

http://www.freedomhouse.org/ratings/allscore04.xls

|1.10.05 @ 7:52PM|#

Mark Bahner,

Your comment doesn't disprove my point of course; indeed, it ignores it.

There mere fact that North Korea turned out to be a Communist hellhole doesn't discount from the fact that South Korea prospered despite America's efforts to support military dictatorships there.

When you can make an argument which actually speaks to the issue, do so.

|1.10.05 @ 8:01PM|#

Mark Bahner,

I challenge you to find *any* expert on Japan who will claim that the U.S. didn't have a significant positive effect on liberalizing Japan!

Japan largely liberalized on its own; its constitution was quite similar to that in place in the 1930s; it had a relatively similar electoral system as at that time; its system of industry-government co-operation continued as before; etc. What WWII largely did was to rid Japan of the military caste that weighed in so heavily into Japanese government affairs; but that was accomplished by the war itself, not the occupation.

As to Panama, I'll reiterate that it remains a third-world craphole. Getting rid of Noriega did not change Panama's rampant government corruption, poverty, disentangle the government from the narco-trade, stop rampant money laundering by Panama's banks, etc. Mart�n Torrijos is only slightly less of a thug than Noriega was.

|1.10.05 @ 8:08PM|#

Mark Bahner,

BTW, I love the sneering, almost racist, attitude of yours. Sorry, but the Japanese and German people after WWII did the heavy lifting, not the U.S., despite whatever Marshall Plan, etc. fantasies you might have.

|1.10.05 @ 8:59PM|#

Um, Mark, the point about South Korea is that until the 1980's the place was mostly ruled by whoever triumphed in a coup. The US supported those military rulers.

Sure, South Korea was still better than North Korea for most (all?) of that time, the only point is that the US was supporting illiberal regimes. The fact that those illiberal regimes were better than North Korea doesn't change the fact that we were NOT promoting liberal democracy in South Korea.

Mark Bahner|1.10.05 @ 9:10PM|#

"BTW, I love the sneering, almost racist, attitude of yours."

BTW, I love your brain-dead nonsense. In case you hadn't noticed, my last name is German.

I *lived* in West Germany for almost 5 years. (My father was a principal of military dependent schools.) I was at the Berlin Wall back when then the stinking communists were still shooting people whose only crime was to want a little freedom.

If you don't know that Stalin would have completely gobbled up Germany (ever heard of EAST Germany?) you're one supremely ignorant twit.

"As to Panama, I'll reiterate that it remains a third-world craphole. Getting rid of Noriega did not change Panama's rampant government corruption, poverty, disentangle the government from the narco-trade, stop rampant money laundering by Panama's banks, etc. Mart�n Torrijos is only slightly less of a thug than Noriega was."

Freedom House's overall (combined political rights and civil liberties freedoms) ranking of Panama has been "free" for the last 10 years. In the 18 years from 1972 (when Freedom House rankings began) to when Noreiga was overthrown in 1990, Panama had never once achieved a ranking of "free." Those are facts. You can spin them any way you wish.

"What WWII largely did was to rid Japan of the military caste that weighed in so heavily into Japanese government affairs; but that was accomplished by the war itself, not the occupation."

The war did NOT "accomplish" that. Japan surrendered before it was even invaded. If the U.S. had left Japan immediately after surrender, appropriate generals would have been "asked" to commit suicide (and probably would have willingly done so) and the military would have reformed around the god-Emperor.

Mark Bahner|1.10.05 @ 9:51PM|#

"The fact that those illiberal regimes were better than North Korea doesn't change the fact that we were NOT promoting liberal democracy in South Korea."

You're right. The South Korean government didn't meet our standards. We should have left, and let the North Korean communists (backed by the Chinese and U.S.S.R., of course) take over the whole peninsula.

Of course, literally millions of people would probably be dead, who are alive today. (Considering the fact that literally millions of people have starved to death in North Korea.)

So millions of people would be dead, but our standards would be intact.

|1.10.05 @ 10:00PM|#

Our government has no right to impose its will on the Iraqi people, let alone hunt them down like animals. There is one ethical solution, bring our troops home now from this war that was and is unnecessary for our defense. Don't forget the WMD and "connections" lies that were used to fabricate compliance among American people. Also, what likely end for Iraq can possibly justify anymore American deaths?

|1.10.05 @ 10:23PM|#

Mark-

If our only role had been to keep the North Koreans at bay while events in South Korea unfolded without our intervention then I would be inclined to concur with your analysis. But my understanding is that we played a part in the various coups.

|1.10.05 @ 10:24PM|#

"The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists"

Using the term "terrorist" to mean any Iraqi who opposes and who takes up arms against our government's occupation of their country, devalues the meaning of the term. A terrorist is one who attacks innocent civilians for political reasons. A terrorist may be a government representative or a civilian. Governments however commit the great balk of terrorism.

|1.10.05 @ 10:26PM|#

If you don't know that Stalin would have completely gobbled up Germany (ever heard of EAST Germany?) you're one supremely ignorant twit

What in Sam Hill does that have to do with Gary's point that Germany had a history of liberal democracy before the US got involved? Germany didn't need a lot of social reconstruction; before 1933 it had been the most liberal and intellectually advanced nation in the world, with an industrial/commercial base rivalling ours.

And *I* lived in South Korea for 2 years. In 1978 it was NOT a democracy. Armed guards were everywhere and all citizens had a curfew. Elections were a sham. It wasn't until long after I left that the liberal left began to remove the junta that had been ruling there since Syngman Rhee, who was installed by US as the puppet ruler in 1949.

So, Mark, THOSE were our standards during the Cold War: any sonofabitch, as long as he was OUR sonofabitch.

|1.10.05 @ 10:31PM|#

Also, what likely end for Iraq can possibly justify anymore American deaths?

So Rick, just how many Iraqi lives equal an American life?

|1.10.05 @ 11:11PM|#

Junyo,

I asked that question because as the WMD pretext has faded away due to lack of voracity, the government wants us to accept that some outcome for Iraq justifies the war.

|1.10.05 @ 11:22PM|#

I'd suggest that if we are now speaking openly of 'hunter/killer' units they're already in place.

|1.10.05 @ 11:43PM|#

Wouldn't it be the perceived benefit that motivates them??

I always get the impression that even the oppressors don't think there is much value in what they offer if there only marketing strategy is to make other options cost more.

We need people over there who know how to make our product/service attractive - salespeople. Is not the problem over there cultural? It seems that Americans are much faster adopting the iraqi culture then they are ours!

|1.11.05 @ 12:22AM|#

"It seems that Americans are much faster adopting the iraqi culture then they are ours!"

I think that's long been a problem the Israelis have had.

raymond|1.11.05 @ 1:22AM|#

Maj. Gen. Muhammad Abdallah al-Shahwani

Is that the guy who proposed - long before it became common practise among the insurgents - cutting off the heads of opponents in the public square?

Oh wait. No. That was the Iraqi justice minister. The one the US installed.

|1.11.05 @ 1:28AM|#

"We could put a time limit on the payment of two years. After that, the Iraqi government would have to do things on its own.

This is a simple plan. It will work...."

Hmm. Mark, I like this kind of thinking. Looking for ways to fix this disaster (which I agree we should not have gotten into) is constructive. Pissing and moaning about every bomb and bullet that goes off over there now is counter productive.

I don't agree that we should cut and run now. Why is a long story.

I'd suggest that rather than US paying the Iraqis, we find a core group of Iraqis to form a gov't we find acceptable, give that gov't the money, and let them buy their own troops. Now it's a native movement, directed by natives. I mean, at the end you get exactly the desired result, yes? If we pay then we have to keep holding the strings, checking to make sure they comply, etc etc. Now all we have to do is watch and make sure that in general, the gov't we've propped up is moving in the right direction.

The time limit on funding works only because Iraq has the world's second largest oil reserves. That's a pile of moolah, and all you gotta do is get the country stablized so the oil can flow. But you sure can't stablize it if you alienate 20% of the population and they're gunning for you, so isn't some compromise going to be necessary? Humaness even?

Sure it's a Utopian project. Utopian projects go all the way back to the European colonial era, it's part of our (U.S.) inheretance. I should hope we outgrow it some day.

But meanwhile, Taiwan, S. Korea, and others, would not be as free as they are today if we hadn't done what we did. Not that I'm an advocate of Utopian stupidity, but it's true that results haven't all been bad.

Anyway, I'd love to see us libertarians get seriously focussed on finding solutions rather than whining about the stupidity of it all (which I agree with and am not happy about like many of you).

I don't trust our politicians a bit. But our only chance of influencing anything, is to have good, constructive ideas to offer.

|1.11.05 @ 1:59AM|#

Mark Bahmer,

In case you hadn't noticed, my last name is German.

But you clearly aren't Japanese or South Korean. Let's also note that you didn't reference Germany in your replies, but you did reference South Korea and Japan.

If you don't know that Stalin would have completely gobbled up Germany (ever heard of EAST Germany?) you're one supremely ignorant twit.

Yet that has nothing to do with the matter at hand, does it? West Germans liberalized their own society and did it largely with their own hands (the past provided a nice base for them as well of course). The German "economic miracle," etc., simply wasn't something that the Germans needed much help with. Anyway, why you are stupidly equating American troops being in a particular geographic locale with liberalization I cannot say (and indeed, that is ALL that you claim), but they are not the same thing. Clear up your muddle-headed thinking and stop assuming that one equals the other, because they clearly do not.

Those are facts.

No, those are the ranking given to Panama by an international organization; we already saw recently (in the economic freedom index) how problematic such rankings are, and I am not going to put much weight into it (especially in light of what I actually know about Panamian society, government, etc.). Now what are the facts are the things I detailed above. That you did not even realize that these issues existed, and that you depend solely on Freedom House's ranking, tells me something as to the poor shape of your knowledge base of the country.

Japan surrendered before it was even invaded.

And most of Japan's military staff associated with the war was either dead before the surrender or committed suicide shortly after it (the war absolutely decimated Japan's military elite and even middle echelons). Indeed, the Emperor's speech by itself brought about a major change in how the Japanese saw their Emporer, society, etc. (as numerous surveys of the Japanese people on the matter have shown over the years), as did the throwing of a few nukes on their soil. The military establishment in Japan was simply crushed by the war. However, the post-war heavy lifting was done by the Japanese and they are largely responsible for the society they have today. Do learn a little Japanese history please.

We should have left, and let the North Korean communists (backed by the Chinese and U.S.S.R., of course) take over the whole peninsula.

Now you are just puking up strawmen.

________________________________________________

Finally, as somewhat of a non-sequitor, as to Stalin "gobbling up" Eastern Europe, let's note that the U.S./U.K. stabbed countries like Poland in the back in 1944 when Stalin's military forces were needed to complete the victory over Germany. Its a pretty sad testament that the Polish Government in Exile's single friend from 1944 onward until the start of the Cold War was de Gaulle and not FDR/Truman/Churchill/etc. Time and again deals struck to deliver arms to Polish, Czech, etc. resistants were cancelled by the Western allies, and this absolute cowardice sealed the fate of these countries for the next forty-five years.

raymond|1.11.05 @ 2:06AM|#

Here's _my_ plan:

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

"We have made a terrible, terrible mistake. We have betrayed the principles upon which our country was founded and have brought misery and death to the people of Iraq.

"We need your help.

"I propose making Iraq a UN protectorate for one year, after which time the destiny of Iraq will be completely in the hands of the Iraqi people. We will gradually remove all our troops - since we realise that their continued presence can only cause more violence - and ask you to replace them with policing troops from the EU, Switzerland, China, and Jordan or any other countries not tainted by the use of violence in this conflict.

"Today I am asking the Congress of the US to ratify the treaty on the International Court. I am reconfirming our commitment to the Geneva Conventions.

"Today I am asking Congress to allocate funds to the UN to pay for cleaning up the mess we've made. Moreover, we will pay compensation to the victims of our torture and bombing.

"We are deeply sorry for having made this horrible horrible mistake. We are deeply sorry for having murdered thousands and thousands of Iraqis. We are deeply sorry for having used and defended torture. We are sincerely sorry for having used violence to further our aims. We have betrayed the principles upon which any valid government must be based, and we apologise.

"Here is my solemn promise: We will henceforth work peacefully to secure fundamental rights throughout the world.

"Thank you."

George W. Bush

|1.11.05 @ 3:21AM|#

From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation

Sounds like a good idea to me.

|1.11.05 @ 6:39AM|#

Leave it to Dan to think bringing back the death squads is a good idea. Since the WMDs were a sham, may I assume you're pushing the "let's bring freedom and democracy to Iraq" bit? Or what, exactly, DO you think we're doing there?

gaius marius|1.11.05 @ 8:23AM|#

Sounds like a good idea to me.

it would, mr dan. it would.

gaius marius|1.11.05 @ 8:37AM|#

I still deny that the "insurgency" has "significant de facto popular support."

The Iraqi Defense Minister said 200,000 people. That's only 1 in 100 Iraqis. The people who are silent definitely don't necessary support the insurgents. They're just scared. It is beyond question that the insurgents are unbelievably violent people. They have proved that they will kill anyone.

mr bahner, i didn't say or mean "majority". few insurgencies carry a majority -- and they don't have to. i simply said "significant".

and if this is the opinion of the united states military on the ground -- not to mention the most obvious explanation for escalating violence in iraq, which has notably spread to mosul, outside the sunni triange -- why are you trying to deny it? do you know something no one else does -- or are you simply not ready to believe that we're the bad guys in this western?

i submit that trying to parse a One Motivation is silly. surely fear does play a role; so does the belief that the americans will leave; so does patriotism; so does patriarchy; so does religion.

again: people are not simple machines or rational monads. it is perfectly credible -- indeed, quite likely -- that millions of iraqis simply suspect and detest the americans far more than they could any countryman or townsman or tribesman or muslim.

i think that, until we accept that, we are extremely unlikely to understand, much less solve, any of our problems in iraq.

gaius marius|1.11.05 @ 8:46AM|#

I'd suggest that rather than US paying the Iraqis, we find a core group of Iraqis to form a gov't we find acceptable, give that gov't the money, and let them buy their own troops. Now it's a native movement, directed by natives. I mean, at the end you get exactly the desired result, yes? If we pay then we have to keep holding the strings, checking to make sure they comply, etc etc. Now all we have to do is watch and make sure that in general, the gov't we've propped up is moving in the right direction.

in other words, mr pragmatist, install a junta. which has the credit of not being utopian at all.

so the choices look increasingly like 1) death squads; 2) junta; 3) the bahner plan -- a sort of indigenous mercenary army; or 4) withdrawal, come-what-may.

Matt|1.11.05 @ 8:51AM|#

"it is perfectly credible -- indeed, quite likely -- that millions of iraqis simply suspect and detest the americans far more than they could any countryman or townsman or tribesman or muslim."

Sure, but it's also likely that the Sunni Arab insurgents and their civilian supporters hate Americans as much as they do because Americans are trying to enforce the will of the inevitable electoral majority. You seem to suggest that our withdrawal would have a calming influence on the situation, which is a heavy bet on very long odds.

gaius marius|1.11.05 @ 9:08AM|#

I'd love to see us libertarians get seriously focussed on finding solutions rather than whining about the stupidity of it all (which I agree with and am not happy about like many of you).

fwiw, mr bahner, i don't think there are any likely "solutions". i think there's a series or horrible choices that we have adopted by the malice of our actions -- which was the clear likelihood from the start, except to some blindly ideological morons in the white house and DoD and those who are leashed to them -- and in this way the iraq disaster will be like virtually every other such severely mismanaged imperial foray.

it will be costly in every way, awful, demoralizing and degenerate -- and it will ultimately end in our embarassing withdrawal, after much carnage, treasure lost and perhaps even civil disarray at home, leaving behind it a failed state in civil war.

i don't think that the pessimistic view so much as the realistic view. the time seems past when we should stop looking for "fixes" and start cutting losses. as it is, we're throwing good people from both sides into a meatgrinder that is unlikely to preserve any outcome we would accept under any likely circumstance.

You seem to suggest that our withdrawal would have a calming influence on the situation, which is a heavy bet on very long odds.

mr matt, any bet we take now is heavy and against long odds.

gaius marius|1.11.05 @ 9:31AM|#

Americans as much as they do because Americans are trying to enforce the will of the inevitable electoral majority.

fwiw, mr matt, the kurds would be rebelling too if this were the only determinant. many kurds see kurdistan in all this; fracturing iraq (possibly with some israeli aid) is as likely as not their ultimate aim, regardless of what we want or do. civil war will be, as a matter of reality, hard to avoid.

and, honestly, that eventuality is also what some neocons want as well, if you can read between the lines of that bit of nro paranoid backstabbing. it fits in very congruously with the notion of a rousseauian/trotskyite global democratic revolution. i wouldn't entirely expect the bush adminstration to step heavily against it.

|1.11.05 @ 9:32AM|#

Yeah, nothing like abruptly removing the military force currently preventing a three-way civil war to "calm the situation."

As for making it a UN protectorate, my god, is anyone really that stupid or naive, after all we've seen in the last twenty years?

|1.11.05 @ 10:11AM|#

I like better the idea of just paying Iraqis a whole bunch of money, and letting them buy their own "equipment" (most importantly, their own guns). With 1 million Iraqis bring their own guns, that raises the price of guns significantly. We also can't be accused of making matters worse if the police with guns turn out to be "bad apples." (Whereas if we buy their guns, we are arming the insurgents.)

The same idea worked out so well for Afghanistan...

gaius marius|1.11.05 @ 10:21AM|#

Yeah, nothing like abruptly removing the military force currently preventing a three-way civil war to "calm the situation."

i agree, mr dean, it is unlikely to do so.

your error, it seems to me, is in thinking it is avoidable in any case. as mr russ d noted on another thread:

There's been a civil war festering in Iraq since before Saddam took power. There have been several factions in Iraq that wanted to see Saddam gone for decades and now he is. The main problem is the US arrogance in thinking all those factions would look at us as saviors. It was never going to happen. Cutting and running is and always was the only option. We can do it now or waste time like Viet Nam, another place where the US decided they knew how to fight a revolution better than the people revolting. How humane was that little excursion?

we are not gods. removing saddam was probably akin to removing the linchpin on that grenade -- now we're simply marking time as the fuse burns with a great deal of bloodshed instigated and endured by americans.

|1.11.05 @ 11:03AM|#

Didn't Bush say he wanted Iraq to be a place where people don't fear the knock on the door at 2AM? Oops.

I think it was the same speech in which he bragged that the torture chambers had been closed down.

gaius marius|1.11.05 @ 11:07AM|#

for what its worth, withdrawal has a name -- the philippine option -- and is also under serious discussion despite the fact that complete destabilization is the acknowledged likely outcome:

Already, Bush found himself in a rare public argument last week with one of his father's closest friends and advisers, Brent Scowcroft, the former national security adviser. The election "won't be a promising transformation, and it has great potential for deepening the conflict," Scowcroft said Thursday, adding, "We may be seeing incipient civil war at this time."

Scowcroft said the situation in Iraq raised the fundamental question of "whether we get out now." He urged Bush to tell the Europeans on a trip to Europe next month, "I can't keep the American people doing this alone. And what do you think would happen if we pulled American troops out right now?"

In short, he was suggesting that Bush raise the specter that Iraq could collapse without a major foreign presence -- exactly the rationale the administration has used for its current policy.

|1.11.05 @ 11:31AM|#

Here's how to end the insurgency very quickly and to ensure that the Sunnis pay a price for their support of the terrorist: For every person killed in a terrorist action, round up and execute two or three Sunni civillians - doesn't matter who they are.Drag them out to the middle of a street and shoot them. Leave the bodies where they fall. That will send the right message - support or allow terrorist to operate in your neighborhood and you will pay the price.

|1.11.05 @ 12:01PM|#

Maybe there are some veterans of the Phoenix Program in South Vietnam who can coach us on the most effective way to stamp out insurgents.

"Here's how to end the insurgency very quickly and to ensure that the Sunnis pay a price for their support of the terrorist: For every person killed in a terrorist action, round up and execute two or three Sunni civillians - doesn't matter who they are.Drag them out to the middle of a street and shoot them. Leave the bodies where they fall. That will send the right message - support or allow terrorist to operate in your neighborhood and you will pay the price."

Hey, great idea, adolph. It worked for the Germans in Occupied France, so why shouldn't it work for us? Maybe we should try it to stomp out drug and gang activity in our inner cities. It's time the folks in those neighborhoods decided they were with us or against us.

|1.11.05 @ 12:07PM|#

I can't quite tell if the person posting this was being sarcastic (the handle "adolph" says something to me), but I'm going to treat it as a serious comment because I suspect that there's a few people here who would endorse it (even if the original poster wouldn't):

For every person killed in a terrorist action, round up and execute two or three Sunni civillians - doesn't matter who they are.Drag them out to the middle of a street and shoot them. Leave the bodies where they fall. That will send the right message - support or allow terrorist to operate in your neighborhood and you will pay the price.

Well, that's always been a popular tactic for some dictators. It might even work, if we're scuttling the notion that we invaded Iraq to bring freedom and democracy.

So, we've nixed WMD, links to 9/11, and democracy. What's the latest pretext?

|1.11.05 @ 12:08PM|#

Gaius said;

"so the choices look increasingly like 1) death squads; 2) junta; 3) the bahner plan -- a sort of indigenous mercenary army; or 4) withdrawal, come-what-may."

Yet another solution would be to let the Kurds march south and take the sunni controlled areas. They would and they could. And the Kurds as of right now love us. You could probably go for a jog in Sulimania, or Irbil in a tank top and shorts, and an American flag, and you would be greeted warmly.

But the Kurds wouldn't be so friendly to the Arab Sunni's who gassed them when Saddam was in power, and who now conduct terrorism against them (far more than they do against US).

I am thinking that the Salvadorean plan is not such a bad one. They are not talking about committing genocide or torturing innocents.

They are talking about taking the war back to them. Hitting back these people who are impunely murdering many Shias and Kurds and a very few Americans.

|1.11.05 @ 12:14PM|#

Oh... also the Sunnis are terrorising their own to the extent that they feel necessary to hold onto their historical tribal power too.

I am not so sure the Salvador type special units would be so unpopular even in Sunni areas if they were succesfull.

|1.11.05 @ 12:21PM|#

Also,

I don't think that it is inevitable that Iraq partitions, I am sure that Iran, Saudi Arabai, Jordan, and Syria would like that outcome, but I am not sure it would happen without foreign intervention. Shia Arabs, and Sunni Arabs both feel that they are Iraqi's and so do Kurds to some lesser extent.

|1.11.05 @ 12:23PM|#

That will send the right message - support or allow terrorist to operate in your neighborhood and you will pay the price.

Unfortunately we cannot plausibly defeat our enemy by becoming them. However I do support the seemingly less apologetic stance in light of the recent near-hit bombing. What is more unfortunate I think is that we do not leverage the tacet message therein: you are already paying the price for allowing the insurgency to operate in your neighborhood. If you want to continue dying, by all means, continue supporting your local insurgents.

It may pay to adopt from time to time a stance similar to that one Afghanistan village (cannot recall the name), where the U.S. response to the charges of innocent people having died was essentially, we meant to kill everyone who is dead. The difference between an insurgent and an "innocent civilian" is a weapon kicked out of view of the camera.

detest the americans far more than they could any countryman or townsman or tribesman or muslim.

Or perhaps they detest themselves for not being able to pull down Saddam's statues and regime on their own.

|1.11.05 @ 12:25PM|#

thoreau - yes sarcastic but also semi-serious in that a) it probably would work and b) there doesn't seem to be a better strategy out there. Of course, Americans wouldn't stand for it - at least I hope so!

The nut of the problem is how do we respond effectively to terrotist tacticts without becoming terrorists/dictators ourselves? We've demonstrated that conventional military strategies and rules of engagement don't work against suicide bombers. Well, they might work over a long span of time during which American troops and innocent Iraqis will continue to get killed on a daily basis. Are our ethics ultimatly dooming our efforts to failure?

It's a classic dillema: Should we abandon our morals and ethics in the short term and take this or a similar course of action so that the conflict will be ended quickly and lives will be saved? If it was O.k. to justify nukking Japan in WW2 with these same arguments, why shouldn't we take extreme measures in Iraq to achieve the same ends - overthrow dictatorship, end the war, save lives (especially American lives)and provide the proper conditions for the establishment of a stable democratic system?

|1.11.05 @ 12:35PM|#

So, we've nixed WMD, links to 9/11, and democracy. What's the latest pretext?

I was always particular to the idea of finishing what the international "community" was unwilling or unable to finish back in '91. The 687 cease fire was violated, and as such we had cause to resume hostilities.

However the September 11 2001 Event Horizon, before which history did not exist, invalidates my lowly opinion.

|1.11.05 @ 12:37PM|#

The problem with that is political - it's a threat of mass destruction which is exactly what the war, as sold to the financers (taxpayers, etc.) was trying to prevent. I don't know what the political fallut would be, but I'm guessing it wouldn't be widespread support. (Support at the end of a gun ain't support, it's acquiesence.)

|1.11.05 @ 12:41PM|#

"I am thinking that the Salvadorean plan is not such a bad one. They are not talking about committing genocide or torturing innocents."

So the nuns were guilty?

raymond|1.11.05 @ 12:43PM|#

(It's very difficult to find a list of de jure UN protectorates. )

As for making it a UN protectorate, my god, is anyone really that stupid or naive, after all we've seen in the last twenty years

I haven't been following the news closely, but... How many American soldiers have been killed in Kosovo and Bosnia in the past year? How many civilians have Americans killed or tortured?

(And don't bother bringing up Somalia. First, I can find no evidence that it was either a de facto or a de jure protectorate. Second, The blame is not only the UN's.)

While trying to find a list of protectorates, I ran across this article: France-Germany Hatching a Plan.

Unfortunately, while the naive/stupid Germans and French were hatching their plan, the sophisticated/clever Mr. Bush was insisting that "the United Nations must soon decide whether to back his demand that Iraq abandon its alleged chemical, biological and nuclear programs or be disarmed by force."

|1.11.05 @ 12:47PM|#

I was always particular to the idea of finishing what the international "community" was unwilling or unable to finish back in '91. The 687 cease fire was violated, and as such we had cause to resume hostilities.

Fair enough. But why did you deem it a job worth finishing? What danger did you see from not finishing it, or what benefit did you see from finishing it?

And don't just say "because we have the right to since the ceasefire was violated." Why do you think it was a good idea to exercise that right?

|1.11.05 @ 12:55PM|#

Another positive about the Salvador method, is that it will be precisely the 'hand to hand' method that Gaius was calling for.

It would be about individuals going into terrorists houses (yes they are fucking terrorists) and fighting them instead of using 500 lbs bombs to an extent.

of course a 500lbs bomb is the best way to go if the house is full of terrorist and you can drop the bomb without harming others.

|1.11.05 @ 12:55PM|#

there doesn't seem to be a better strategy out there.

The Salvador Option seems a good strategy, so long as we do not equip the mercenaries to the point of being able to sustain themselves as a mercenary group without us. And we should probably avoid embedding journalists.

It's not ethics. Ethics and morals are cheap. It's all about PR.

|1.11.05 @ 1:06PM|#

"So the nuns were guilty?"

Well I was talking about the Salvadoran solution in Iraq, not in El Salvador.

Also, though some on this thread say that the Salvadoran solution did not work in El Salvador, some El Salvadorans that I have talked to recently would argue differently. And they say that El Salvador though still a 3rd world craphole is a lot better than it used to be.

But about the nuns, yep that was not right, but that isn't to say that the squads did more harm than good. (Which I can'r really say whether they did or didn't in that case. I just think it might do some good in this particular case.)

gaius marius|1.11.05 @ 1:35PM|#

Well I was talking about the Salvadoran solution in Iraq, not in El Salvador.

do you seriously think we could keep it from degenerating when we can't even protect ourselves? on what basis? or do we simply now prefer to ignore the lessons of even recent history when they are inconvenient? or do we imagine that, because we think it doesn't have to go wrong, it won't?

it's *asking* for genocide, mr kwais. you should be able to see that.

But about the nuns, yep that was not right, but that isn't to say that the squads did more harm than good.

or is it simply another case of the ends justifying the means?

gaius marius|1.11.05 @ 1:38PM|#

If it was O.k. to justify nukking Japan in WW2 with these same arguments, why shouldn't we take extreme measures in Iraq to achieve the same ends - overthrow dictatorship, end the war, save lives (especially American lives)and provide the proper conditions for the establishment of a stable democratic system?

and onto the slippery slope we go, mr adolph!

|1.11.05 @ 2:07PM|#

I don't know if it is a thing of end justifying the means. I don't think it would be a genocide. I think that inevitably there would be mistakes or abuses. But perhaps not taking action will result in much worse.

Right now most of the problems are being caused by the Sunni. And the Sunni are being protected from the Shia and the Kurds from us.

|1.11.05 @ 2:09PM|#

Um, that would be sunni Arabs. As the Kurds are Sunni also for the most part, but they don't seem to think that they are chosen by God to rule the rest.

|1.11.05 @ 2:58PM|#

But why did you deem it a job worth finishing?

Because I saw Hussein as a match near a powder keg. We made it clear to Hussein in '91 that we would continue to prosecute war against him so long as he did not accept the 12 conditions to their cease fire. It was a job worth finishing not strictly because we had the right, but because we said we would.

|1.11.05 @ 3:13PM|#

...and because Hitler didn't stop at Poland. Hussein's pretext for invading Kuwait (overproduction) was so thin, there was no reason to believe he didn't have his eyes set on Saudi Arabia as well. He saw S.A. just as he saw Kuwait, as an agent of the west, and with the fourth largest army in the world, he had the means to fulfill his dream. That's the kind of cancer you just want to cut out and destroy as quickly as possible, instead of letting it fester for a decade to see what else it can produce. Like getting an abortion after Dad rapes you. "Well, that was an unholy union, let's flush this puppy out right quick."

it's *asking* for genocide, mr kwais. you should be able to see that.

Or perhaps just a drastic thinning of the herd.

|1.11.05 @ 3:16PM|#

"I am thinking that the Salvadorean plan is not such a bad one. They are not talking about committing genocide or torturing innocents."

Reagan, Otto Reich, and the ARENA Party didn't "talk" about these things, either. Yet they happened, inevitably.

"They are talking about taking the war back to them. Hitting back these people who are impunely murdering many Shias and Kurds and a very few Americans"

No, they're talking about taking the war to people who live in the wrong neighborhood, in which actual terrorists are being "supported" in some indirect ways, and using the deaths to terrorize the rest of the population. Just like any other secret police/state terrorist.

|1.11.05 @ 3:34PM|#

Joe,
It is not quite like secret police/state terrorist. in that it would be done to enable elections not to prevent them. It would be done openly and people who abuse their authority would be prosecuted like the people of Abu Ghraib are.

I don't know if you can see those litte important differences. But the authoritarian terrorist murderers are the ones we are fighting. And a major complaint of many of the locals is that we are fighting too softly

|1.11.05 @ 3:44PM|#

they're talking about taking the war to people who live in the wrong neighborhood, in which actual terrorists are being "supported" in some indirect ways,

The infrastructure of an army, legal or illegal, is a valid target. These people are putting themselves and those near them in harm's way and they know it.

gaius marius|1.11.05 @ 4:01PM|#

It is not quite like secret police/state terrorist. in that it would be done to enable elections not to prevent them.

this strikes me as disingenuous, mr kwais. these death squads are not being considered for the time from now to january 30 and have nothing to do with any scheduled election. they are being considered as an instrument of totalitarian repression. does it matter if the totalitarian power stages elections (in which, i might add, the candidate list and the ballot counting are approved by an occupying foreign power)?

a major complaint of many of the locals is that we are fighting too softly

that may be -- i personally think we don't have sufficient manpower there -- but these iraqis don't have to look at themselves in our mirror. it would be easy to slide into barbarism, but the cost at home over time could be colossal. we must resist this urge.

gaius marius|1.11.05 @ 4:03PM|#

The infrastructure of an army, legal or illegal, is a valid target.

does not that logic -- target all infrastructure, even civilian -- justify destroying downtown manhattan, as the commercial hub of the american juggernaut?

i don't think this is a plausible excuse to kill people -- people who you can only hope will be guilty of something.

gaius marius|1.11.05 @ 4:10PM|#

It would be done openly and people who abuse their authority would be prosecuted like the people of Abu Ghraib are.

again, mr kwais -- these are all the same promises that are made whenever someone starts something so evil. the inquisition was only to be used against the heretic. the committee for public safety will only be used against traitors. the cheka will only be used against the counter-revolutionaries.

good intentions pave the road to hell. do we have to discover this again?

|1.11.05 @ 4:20PM|#

"I was always particular to the idea of finishing what the international "community" was unwilling or unable to finish back in '91."

By "international community", do you mean Bush the Elder? By "unwilling or unable", do you mean following the Powell Doctrine?

|1.11.05 @ 4:39PM|#

I said:

The infrastructure of an army

You said:

target all infrastructure, even civilian

These are not the same things.

destroying downtown manhattan, as the commercial hub of the american juggernaut?

For what purpose? Downtown manhattan is not the commercial hub of the American juggernaut, that's just an icon on which you can hang notions of the Metropolis. I think we are speaking in different contexts. You argue from morality; I argue from tactics. Wiping out the whole of civilian infrastructure is inefficient. I think we should make it clear now, before we drop further bombs, that we do not distinguish between the "terrorists" (or whatever we want to call them) and the people who are geographically nearby. Further, we should not apologize for or attempt to explain any collateral damage.

Fear and isolation.

|1.11.05 @ 4:44PM|#

By "international community", do you mean Bush the Elder?

No, as you may be aware, the term "international community" is a combination of "international," meaning between states, and "community," meaning some variably cooperative body. For arguments sake we'll call this hypothetical body the "United Nations," or "U.N." for short. I am laying the blame at the feet of everyone who naievely thought UNSCRs 687 and 688 were how to "win the peace" in Iraq. Bush Sr. is included, but by no means is he alone in blame.

gaius marius|1.11.05 @ 5:02PM|#

Fear and isolation.

is the basis for any healthy democracy.

i feel both tickled by absurdity and desperate at reality that you are serious on some perverted level, mr rst.

|1.11.05 @ 5:57PM|#

is the basis for any healthy democracy.

I'm talking about war. There is no democracy in Iraq yet. The vote at the end of the month is only theoretically democratic. Finish war first, then talk about democracy. By the time they finally get their republic, the war-time notions of fearing the U.S. military, or being isolated by it, will have left with the military.

you are serious on some perverted level, mr rst.


I am mostly serious.

|1.11.05 @ 7:37PM|#

rst,

UN resolution this or that meant nothing; we didn't go to Baghdad in '91 because Bush the Elder chose to follow the Powell Doctrine.

...By the way, if we had remained true to the Powell Doctrine, we wouldn't be in this mess, don't you agree? We are in a mess, aren't we? You don't think Iraq is a success, do you?

|1.12.05 @ 10:32AM|#

Finish war first, then talk about democracy.

Why? Are you suggesting that a democracy can't finish the war? We're calling it insurgency, perhaps the locals consider it "electioneering".