‘The Salvador Option’

[ruthie]

Lions and tigers and Death Squads, oh my! The news gets worse, and the list of illegal activies of the Bush Administration gets longer and longer.
Why call it the Salvador Option? Why not just call it what it is...Operation Murder. How coincidental is it that John Negroponte, who is the U.S. ambassador to Iraq was ambassador to Honduras, under Raygun? Allawi, our Iraqi puppet is all for it.
So, if one is an "insurgent", or freedom fighter, or if one is a "sympathizer"...mind you, that doesn't mean they actively help the opposition, they just won't turn them in, well, Ready, aim, fire.
How anyone finds this shit acceptable is beyond me. War crime after war crime, and of course, Gonzales wants to be Attorney General..after permitting and finding ways to "allow" torture.
Is anyone else here outraged like me?



‘The Salvador Option’
The Pentagon may put Special-Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq
By Michael Hirsh and John Barry
Newsweek
Updated: 10:22 a.m. ET Jan. 9, 2005

Jan. 8 - What to do about the deepening quagmire of Iraq? The Pentagon’s latest approach is being called "the Salvador option"—and 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.

Now, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration’s battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success—despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal. (Among the current administration officials who dealt with Central America back then is John Negroponte, who is today the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Under Reagan, he was ambassador to Honduras.)

Following that model, one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions. It remains unclear, however, whether this would be a policy of assassination or so-called "snatch" operations, in which the targets are sent to secret facilities for interrogation. The current thinking is that while U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria, activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries, officials tell NEWSWEEK.

Also being debated is which agency within the U.S. government—the Defense department or CIA—would take responsibility for such an operation. Rumsfeld’s Pentagon has aggressively sought to build up its own intelligence-gathering and clandestine capability with an operation run by Defense Undersecretary Stephen Cambone. But since the Abu Ghraib interrogations scandal, some military officials are ultra-wary of any operations that could run afoul of the ethics codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That, they argue, is the reason why such covert operations have always been run by the CIA and authorized by a special presidential finding. (In "covert" activity, U.S. personnel operate under cover and the U.S. government will not confirm that it instigated or ordered them into action if they are captured or killed.)

Meanwhile, intensive discussions are taking place inside the Senate Intelligence Committee over the Defense department’s efforts to expand the involvement of U.S. Special Forces personnel in intelligence-gathering missions. Historically, Special Forces’ intelligence gathering has been limited to objectives directly related to upcoming military operations—"preparation of the battlefield," in military lingo. But, according to intelligence and defense officials, some Pentagon civilians for years have sought to expand the use of Special Forces for other intelligence missions.

Pentagon civilians and some Special Forces personnel believe CIA civilian managers have traditionally been too conservative in planning and executing the kind of undercover missions that Special Forces soldiers believe they can effectively conduct. CIA traditionalists are believed to be adamantly opposed to ceding any authority to the Pentagon. Until now, Pentagon proposals for a capability to send soldiers out on intelligence missions without direct CIA approval or participation have been shot down. But counter-terrorist strike squads, even operating covertly, could be deemed to fall within the Defense department’s orbit.

The interim government of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is said to be among the most forthright proponents of the Salvador option. Maj. Gen.Muhammad Abdallah al-Shahwani, director of Iraq’s National Intelligence Service, may have been laying the groundwork for the idea with a series of interviews during the past ten days. Shahwani told the London-based Arabic daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat that the insurgent leadership—he named three former senior figures in the Saddam regime, including Saddam Hussein’s half-brother—were essentially safe across the border in a Syrian sanctuary. "We are certain that they are in Syria and move easily between Syrian and Iraqi territories," he said, adding that efforts to extradite them "have not borne fruit so far."

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. "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."

Pentagon sources emphasize there has been no decision yet to launch the Salvador option. Last week, Rumsfeld decided to send a retired four-star general, Gary Luck, to Iraq on an open-ended mission to review the entire military strategy there. But with the U.S. Army strained to the breaking point, military strategists note that a dramatic new approach might be needed—perhaps one as potentially explosive as the Salvador option.

With Mark Hosenball

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
from MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/)

[Rat Faced]

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.

That means that most of the Iraqi population are sympathisers..

ergo: They are freedom fighters not terrorists.

It also follows that most of the population of Iraq would fall into the category of "Target" in this scenario...

[hobbes]

That means that most of the Iraqi population are sympathisers..

ergo: They are freedom fighters not terrorists.

It also follows that most of the population of Iraq would fall into the category of "Target" in this scenario...


What freedom are they fighting for, exactly.

If peace were to be established, and elections were held, THEN, and only then, would Foreign forces be obliged to leave. If they didn't leave, I would fully support them as freedom fighters.

If the elected government was unsuitable for the people, they could be voted out in the next election. If this truly is a "puppet government", then they would be back to an oppressive dictatorship.

The fact is that the rebels/freedom fighters are comprised of the former favored Sunni's, who prefer chaos to losing power.

If the US leaves now, I can't imagine the death toll, it would be in the millions.

[DanB]

These death squads are supposedly meant to be going into Syria to sort out the people the Syrians won't.

Although maybe 'sort out' is a bad phrase to use.

I don't see how most of the Iraqi people can sympathise with them when 90% of the last weeks bombings and attacks have only caused civilian casualties

[Rat Faced]

Ask Maj. Gen.Muhammad Abdallah al-Shahwani, director of Iraq’s National Intelligence Service... he's the one that said it :P

[Biggles]

Ah! the old "death squad" option.

I am not surprised that Allawi is comfortable with the idea - he was a Ba'athist heavyweight until he fell out with Saddam.

Is that what we are there to do? Set up another strong man who uses extra-judicial killing to remove opposition?

Who decides who might be a threat? Who checks afterwards that the right people are removed and holds the death squads to account?

It shows how desperate things are in Iraq that this is even being entertained.

Given the problems the security forces are facing in Iraq I can't see them making much headway in Syria. I believe the Israeli security forces have only managed a couple of hits there in the last few years and they are quite good that kind of thing.

These squads if allowed to form will form the basis for political control for somebody in Iraq and we will be back to square one with regards freedom and democracy in the ME. I doubt the UK government will want to be involved in such things and nor, I suspect, will most of what is left of the coalition.

This is not a good move. If they know who the insurgents are, arrest them - why create a secret police force to bump them off in the night. It bodes ill! :ph34r:

[DanB]

Could be worse, I have read elsewhere that all the terrorist attacks were being carried out by the US to prove that they needed to be there :lol:

[hobbes]

Ask Maj. Gen.Muhammad Abdallah al-Shahwani, director of Iraq’s National Intelligence Service... he's the one that said it :P

I'm asking you.

[vidcc]

Just playing devils advocate here trying to put an opposing arguement. I in no way believe I know what the "insurgents" think



What freedom are they fighting for, exactly.

perhaps freedom from the occupying forces

If peace were to be established, and elections were held, THEN, and only then, would Foreign forces be obliged to leave. If they didn't leave, I would fully support them as freedom fighters.

Just as some Americans believe the only way to end terrorism is to destroy it with force, may be that the insurgents think the only way to remove an occupying force is by the use of force

If the elected government was unsuitable for the people, they could be voted out in the next election. If this truly is a "puppet government", then they would be back to an oppressive dictatorship.
may be they don't want to be forced to comply with the directions of outsiders to get the occupying force out

The fact is that the rebels/freedom fighters are comprised of the former favored Sunni's, who prefer chaos to losing power.

just as we prefer free elections to dictatorships it all depends on which side of the fence one sits

If the US leaves now, I can't imagine the death toll, it would be in the millions.
i agree, and don't think they should leave now, however if we truely wanted the Iraqis to determine their own "freedom" wouldn't a much quicker way be to let them do it themselves, thus removing the "outside interference" element ?



now i don't pretend to have the ultimate answer, all i am doing is trying to put a less western persective on the issue


Could you imagine an American accepting any kind of control in how we run our affairs from an outside force?....no matter what the circumstance.

My opinion is that is what the insurgency is up to..however instead or thinking like an American, they are thinking like Arabs...an ancient and very proud race.


Have you ever seen the bumper sticker..... "I would rather have a sister in a whore house than a brother on a Jap motorbike"...... ?

[hobbes]

Vidcc,

I think the last point is all that matters.

If America leaves, millions will die.

[vidcc]

Vidcc,

I think the last point is all that matters.

If America leaves, millions will die.

I haven't argued that point, I just tried to put a theory to your original question

Originally Posted by hobbes
What freedom are they fighting for, exactly.

[Rat Faced]

What freedom are they fighting for, exactly.

Exactly the same Freedom you'd be fighting for if someone occupied your country and tried to force their values on you. Or I'd be fighting for if it was this country that was occupied. I didnt say Democracy is wrong... however it has to be their choice to be Democratic.

If peace were to be established, and elections were held, THEN, and only then, would Foreign forces be obliged to leave. If they didn't leave, I would fully support them as freedom fighters.

It depends which ones.

There are both Terrorists and Resistance Fighters here.. lumped together in the word "Insurgents".

I will never support Terrorists, however it's still my view that the Resistance Fighters have every right to fight against an occupying force.

I would, and you probably would.. why shouldnt they?

If the elected government was unsuitable for the people, they could be voted out in the next election. If this truly is a "puppet government", then they would be back to an oppressive dictatorship.

No election in this country is going to mean "Peace". They have been trying to kill each other for thousands of years, and apart from a brief "common enemy" in Britain and now the coalition, they will continue to do so. The country should be split into its component parts, not forced into one Democracy, or there is only one result... Civil War.

The fact is that the rebels/freedom fighters are comprised of the former favored Sunni's, who prefer chaos to losing power.

As the Resisitance Fighters are largely being led by the Clerics, and these had no power under Saddam and the Shi'ites are also involved in many (although granted, not as many) insidents.. I cant see the logic of this statement.

If the US leaves now, I can't imagine the death toll, it would be in the millions.

The Death Toll will be high whatever we do.

As I've said before.. the Coalition forces are seen as Occupiers. If the UN put troops in there that do not belong to the coalition and the coaltion forces left. They might, just might, be seen as security for the elections.... but i wouldnt put any money on that.

[hobbes]

What I am asking Vidcc, is that I am uncertain what their goal is. Are they a unified group, are they Iraqi's, do they have demands.

By fighting the local and American forces, they only serve to ensure that American forces HAVE to remain. By not fighting, the occupying force is compelled to leave. So why fight to expel invaders when the only reason they are staying is because you are fighting to expel them. :blink:

This does not make much sense from a "freedom fighter" mentality.

An intelligent person would put the guns down, show a big smile and pat the US on the back as they leave the country. THEN I would uprise against the new government.

I think these people are more there to cause chaos and instability. If they eventually get the US frustated enough to leave, then they can begin their 20 year civil war.

That is my counter theory to your theory. Any others. :w00t:

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Rat Faced:


No election in this country is going to mean "Peace". They have been trying to kill each other for thousands of years, and apart from a brief "common enemy" in Britain and now the coalition, they will continue to do so. The country should be split into its component parts, not forced into one Democracy, or there is only one result... Civil War.

Yes, I've thought about that, but I don't think it would work logistically. First off, I think that groups that don't like each other are mixed together. They would have to be separated and this brings up the whole issue of who gets what. I'm not sure how the oil is spread across Iraq, but certainly each faction would want the oil money. I suspect civil war would be the eventual conclusion to this affair.

[vidcc]

What I am asking Vidcc, is that I am uncertain what their goal is. Are they a unified group, are they Iraqi's, do they have demands.

I thought i had suggested that already....the withdrawal of the occupying forces would be the primary objective, in this i believe they are united. After that i wouldn't be amazed if the goal would be power...in the Arab way

By fighting the local and American forces, they only serve to ensure that American forces HAVE to remain. By not fighting, the occupying force is compelled to leave. So why fight to expel invaders when the only reason they are staying is because you are fighting to expel them. :blink:


This does not make much sense from a "freedom fighter" mentality.

An intelligent person would put the guns down, show a big smile and pat the US on the back as they leave the country. THEN I would uprise against the new government.

it's easy to look at it in this rational way, and yes you are right, however compare it to a burglar in your home. (i am not suggesting you personally here)...the logical thing to do would be to let him take his booty and leave..then call the police who hopefully will capture him and bring him to justice. That way your family will hopefully come to no harm.
However many think that the best way to deal with the intruder is to shoot him..... this is what i believe the insurgents are doing.
remember also the fact that they are occupied is humiliating and to just simply drop arms and wait is not something their pride would allow....

have you ever heard of the motto "death before dishonor"?

it doesn't make sense but then i am trying to figure out why they act as they do and not how they should act.


I think these people are more there to cause chaos and instability. If they eventually get the US frustated enough to leave, then they can begin their 20 year civil war.

i don't think they want a long civil war at all...i think they want control, as quickly as possible and once they have it as stable as possible...by whatever means

That is my counter theory to your theory. Any others. :w00t:


and it is a good theory as to a better way to achieve their objective, however i am not trying to do that. I am trying to figure out the way they see things, not the way we would like them to see things.



My belief is that we would make more progress if we tried to understand the way they think instead of forcing them to think our way.

Edit: @ Ruthie

My appologies for straying so far off topic.

I think the option is too open to abuse to make it anything other than illegal under international law

[Rat Faced]

It is illegal under international law... but then everything about Iraq is.

I dont pretend to understand them hobbes, however why assume that all people are rational?

We know how and why we act...

I dont pretend to know how or why people of other cultures will react under similar stimuli...

I do know, that the country in question is:

1/ More violent than my own, with no shortage of firearms.

2/ That there is a large very religious element, that have their own agenda.

3/ That their system of honour and morality is different from my own.

The three above things could be addressed to Utah, as much as it could to Iraq for me.. ie: They are different.

I also know that I would be doing exactly the same thing... fighting the occupier. Yes, this may be irrational to you... to me, its simple: I wouldnt want my country invaded, occupied and changed without my consent.

The fact that the outsider thinks they are doing me a favour, is irrelevant. They also killed members of my family and friends on the way in.. and continue to kill my countrymen... they are the enemy.

[hobbes]

I think these people are more there to cause chaos and instability. If they eventually get the US frustated enough to leave, then they can begin their 20 year civil war.

i don't think they want a long civil war at all...i think they want control, as quickly as possible and once they have it as stable as possible...by whatever means


When the US leaves, who are THEY going to be. I imagine that their common goal will be achieved and THEY will become many different groups with many different ideas of how Iraq should be.

This civil war will quite long and quite bloody.

I picked 20 years because I believe that a civil war, killing millions, has be going on in the Sudan for that time period. Afghanistan is another example that pops to mind.

As far as "how they think", they better try again because they are just shooting themselves in the foot and killing their own to boot. As DanB suggested earlier, 90% of the casualties last week were civilian. That is hardly attacking American invaders. Rat, you wouldn't be shooting your own would you? Anyway, I find creating a parallel situation between what we have done an Iraq and an invasion of the US difficult to fathom.

Excuse the rushed nature of the post, I just wanted it out there so I have something to muse while doing my little jog thing, which I hate.

[j2k4]

Oh, FFS, all this crap over an article in Newsweek?

Right, and Gunga Dan still hasn't disavowed the notorious Bush Texas A.N.G. memos, either.

We should start a Conspiracy-of-the-Month section.

This is just the same as all the silly notions propounded by those who think Bush stole Ohio on November 2nd...the DNC (and the RNC, likewise) wallpaper the country with legal-eagles, but nobody's found their way to court, yet.

Some people will believe anything, as long as someone will "report" it. :blink:

Amazing! :ohmy:

[DanB]

Well its been all over the news on the telly here, so much so that the Defence Secretary was on the news to making a speech to say that Britain would not be involved in anything like that :dry:

[j2k4]

Well its been all over the news on the telly here, so much so that the Defence Secretary was on the news to making a speech to say that Britain would not be involved in anything like that :dry:

Yes, and after nothing comes of it, he'll still be on record with his comment.

Neat, huh?

Credibility, once conferred, is very difficult to retrieve; just ask Bush, vis a vis WMD.

[vidcc]

I think these people are more there to cause chaos and instability. If they eventually get the US frustated enough to leave, then they can begin their 20 year civil war.

i don't think they want a long civil war at all...i think they want control, as quickly as possible and once they have it as stable as possible...by whatever means


When the US leaves, who are THEY going to be. I imagine that their common goal will be achieved and THEY will become many different groups with many different ideas of how Iraq should be.

This civil war will quite long and quite bloody.

I picked 20 years because I believe that a civil war, killing millions, has be going on in the Sudan for that time period. Afghanistan is another example that pops to mind.




not sure why you think i am talking about just one group :unsure: as i spoke of a common goal first. Yes they will split and if it happens a civil war will be a long process...i didn't say it wouldn't be...i said they wouldn't want a long war, they would want to win it a quick as possible (this goes for all sides).



As far as "how they think", they better try again because they are just shooting themselves in the foot and killing their own to boot. As DanB suggested earlier, 90% of the casualties last week were civilian. That is hardly attacking American invaders. Rat, you wouldn't be shooting your own would you?

there are some unplanned casulties from both sides, however one shouldn't assume that just because someone is of the same country that they are on the same side.... isurgents will see american backed iraqi forces as traitors and therefore no different from the occupying forces.

Why do you find it hard to imagine what you would do if America was invaded?


Anyway, I find creating a parallel situation between what we have done an Iraq and an invasion of the US difficult to fathom.


Perhaps the insugents don't view "what we have done in Iraq " the same way as you do...

[cpt_azad]

I for one am appauled. But I didn't expect anything else, I mean ever since March 2003 it's been kill this and murder that over in the ME. If I could build a time-machine, oh how much better the world would be right now.

[j2k4]

Perhaps the insugents don't view "what we have done in Iraq " the same way as you do...

That much is clear.

I am more concerned with the opinion of the non-insurgent Iraqi, whose opinion cannot be plumbed properly due to anti-coalition bias; any Iraqi who buys the idea that what motivates the U.S. is altruistic in nature must be either totally off his nut, or on the U.S. payroll...

There are no pro-freedom Iraqis, or rather, there are no pro-U.S.-engendered-freedom Iraqis, right? ;)

[cpt_azad]

What you say j2 would be like saying there are liberal conservatives, if they do exist, i don't want to know about it.

[j2k4]

What you say j2 would be like saying there are liberal conservatives, if they do exist, i don't want to know about it.

If a pro-coalition Iraqi exists, you don't want to know? :huh:

[cpt_azad]

I don't think you got the sarcasm of my post.

[vidcc]

That much is clear.

There are no pro-freedom Iraqis, or rather, there are no pro-U.S.-engendered-freedom Iraqis, right? ;)

Who said that?

I'm sure there are Iraqis that like what the USA is doing...however we are not discussing them... unless you consider them "insurgents"

[j2k4]

I don't think you got the sarcasm of my post.

No, it is you who didn't get mine.

Nyah, nyah. :whistling

[cpt_azad]

lol, or maybe i countered your sarcasm with that of my own :whistle: oh i'll never tell.......

[hobbes]

This thread has become specious, deflective and argumentative.

I have made my points and I am happy with that.

The "freedom fighters" are not helping the average Iraqi.

A civil war will ensue if American forces are to leave before a stable government is in place.

Millions will die in the conflict and I doubt that "Iraq" will ever be a sovereign country again.

I was looking for a discussion on what options were available to salvage the situation. I'm actually a bit disappointed, too much debate and not enough thought.

[j2k4]

This thread has become specious, deflective and argumentative.

I have made my points and I am happy with that.

The "freedom fighters" are not helping the average Iraqi.

A civil war will ensue if American forces are to leave before a stable government is in place.

Millions will die in the conflict and I doubt that "Iraq" will ever be a sovereign country again.

A thousand apologies, sir-

You are correct beyond any shadow of doubt, assuming your last is contingent on the sentence immediately prior to it?

[ruthie]

How about addressing the issue of death squads..period? Do you think there is ANY legitimacy in having death squads running around Iraq killing people?
I think there will be civil war in Iraq, whatever the actions or non-actions of the US.
For those Iraqi's that even "thought" things might get better for them..well, do you think they all still believe that now?

[j2k4]

How about addressing the issue of death squads..period? Do you think there is ANY legitimacy in having death squads running around Iraq killing people?

I am quite sure there are "death squads" operating in Iraq to some degree, and I'm positive all of them would fail any test of legitimacy; just who is sponsoring them is only a bit less clear.

Are you convinced any that exist operate under Coalition auspices, Ruthie?

Unless you consider U.S. Army regulars taking out an insurgent group to be a "Death-Squad"?


I think there will be civil war in Iraq, whatever the actions or non-actions of the US.

I think what is occurring there now qualifies as a "civil" war, as long as one fails to acknowledge that a huge number of these so-called insurgents are border-crossers.

For those Iraqi's that even "thought" things might get better for them..well, do you think they all still believe that now?

You seem positive their numbers are negligible; why don't we wait until the elections have passed?

One would think a solid indicator might arise from the event.

[cpt_azad]

Ignorance is bliss. No matter how much you tell people (i'm not talking about J2, I'm talking about your average person on Earth that believes what's going on Iraq is a good thing) they still will not acknowledge the fact that Iraq will never again be what it was prior to 1992, or even for that matter 2003. Election or no election, it will change very little, and before you know it, it will become a 3rd world country. As for civil war? It's an inevitibility, just gotta wait a few more years, maybe months, you can't control a population that large that thinks "otherwise" of the US presence there in Iraq. Ignorance is bliss. I for one do not want any more bloodshed, but I know there is absolutely nothing I or any of us can do at the moment to stop this inevitibility from "unwinding". Now to get back to making that time machine.....

[Rat Faced]

I said what i think...

If there is going to be foreign "Security Forces" for a while, they can only come from countries that did not form part of the coalition.

I also think thats a long shot, and probably wont work.

There is going to be civil war, as i predicted prior to the invasion.. That said, choose a side or back off....

...because its going to make The Balkans and Sudan look like a Garden Picnic.

[lynx]

By not fighting, the occupying force is compelled to leave.I can't help feeling this statement to be naive in the extreme. If you really think that if everything suddenly went quiet then the occupying forces (after a successful election) would suddenly up sticks and go home, then you haven't grasped why they are in Iraq in the first place.

It isn't about making the place democratic, it is all about controlling the area. By giving Saddam too much leeway they lost control of him, but they didn't get rid of him after Gulf War I because they thought they might have a chance of getting that control back. When it became apparent that wasn't going to happen, they decided to use force. The current action is simply to restore the control they had before, but with troops stationed to make sure this time - they aren't likely to be leaving any time soon.

These reports of "Death squads" etc take us back to exactly how this mess started in the first place. Talk about failing to learn from mistakes.

[hobbes]

I can't help feeling this statement to be naive in the extreme. If you really think that if everything suddenly went quiet then the occupying forces (after a successful election) would suddenly up sticks and go home, then you haven't grasped why they are in Iraq in the first place.

It isn't about making the place democratic, it is all about controlling the area. By giving Saddam too much leeway they lost control of him, but they didn't get rid of him after Gulf War I because they thought they might have a chance of getting that control back. When it became apparent that wasn't going to happen, they decided to use force. The current action is simply to restore the control they had before, but with troops stationed to make sure this time - they aren't likely to be leaving any time soon.

These reports of "Death squads" etc take us back to exactly how this mess started in the first place. Talk about failing to learn from mistakes.


Yes lynx, you make some valid points. My naivette is perhaps just my clinging to the only vestige of hope I see.

Aside from the US imposing some oppressive and ruthless dictator equal to Saddam, but Pro-US, I see a representative democracy as the only hope for peace in such a divided country. I get the feeling that they rival groups would rather play "king of the hill" and are salivating at the possibilities.

My comment was directed at internal (from the US) and external(from our allies) forces influencing the US to leave. If there is no fighting and elections have been held, then the US is obliged to go.

It is at this juncture that the cards would then be shown. Does the US pack up and leave in stages or does it declare it's intent to continually occupy Arab soil.

In the latter case, I would have to support the insurgents and I would urge my government to leave.

So my comments were directed at giving the US a chance to leave a country at peace, as the only possible decent solution. If they did not, then I doubt little good can be said in their behalf.

In 1990, Scwartzkoff stated that Saddam was not taken out because there was no reconstruction plan. He was afraid that exactly what is happening would happen. Oh well, live and don't learn. I think Bush thought he had a reconstruction plan, just turned out to be a bad one.

[lynx]

Ah, I now see where you are coming from.

I think Bush thought he had a reconstruction plan, just turned out to be a bad one.Seems to have been more of a destruction plan.
:dry:

[vidcc]

for hobbes (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/12/iraq.bin.laden.ap/index.html)

Just an interesting article on CNN, seperating Iraqi "freedom fighter" from those that just wish "chaos"`


my opinion is that it would be acceptable to use "death squads" to target AQ leaders, however it has to be with permission of the soveriegn government on whos land they are situated.
For an outside force to go into another country to perform such an operation without express permission would be in my opinion an act of war.

That said it is still too open to abuse to be legitimate and if a death squad could achieve its goal why couldn't a capture squad be just as successful?

Death squads are the equivilent of lynch mobs...Even the worst human scum on Earth is entitled to a fair trial

[DanB]

I reckon a death squad could be made up of a smaller number of people than a capture squad so they would be able to slip in, hit the target and get out with less chance of being seen or challenged.

Flashback to Somalia anyone :unsure: