NationStates Jolt Archive


Rumsfeld wants to use terrorism in the war in Iraq

Skapedroe
10-01-2005, 04:48
* Ive always said that Bush was no different then Osama except for the fact that Bush has a higher body count of innocents on his head

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.

Ambassador to Iraq John Negroponte, center, was ambassador to Honduras during the Reagan years

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.
newsweek.com
Von Witzleben
10-01-2005, 06:12
They have used it since the beginning of the war.
Skapedroe
10-01-2005, 06:23
so in other words terrorism is ok so long as the American govt is sponsoring it?
Von Witzleben
10-01-2005, 06:26
so in other words terrorism is ok so long as the American govt is sponsoring it?
I didn't say that did I? What I meant is that the US has been using terrorism since the war started. All be it technoligal sopisticated terror. Attack choppers, tanks etc....
Neo-Anarchists
10-01-2005, 06:27
so in other words terrorism is ok so long as the American govt is sponsoring it?
What?
That's nothing like what he said. He never said it was okay anywhere.

EDIT:
VW beat me to it.
Skapedroe
10-01-2005, 06:28
I didn't say that did I? What I meant is that the US has been using terrorism since the war started. All be it technoligal sopisticated terror. Attack choppers, tanks etc....
America has been using terrorism for decades
Skapedroe
10-01-2005, 06:29
What?
That's nothing like what he said. He never said it was okay anywhere.

EDIT:
VW beat me to it.
I know he wasnt saying that--he misunderstood me. I was just asken a rhetorical question
Von Witzleben
10-01-2005, 06:29
Skapedroe should know better then to think me standing up for Rumsfeld. ;)
Von Witzleben
10-01-2005, 06:30
I know he wasnt saying that--he misunderstood me. I was just asken a rhetorical question
Ah ok. Misunderstandings all around then. :D
Neo-Anarchists
10-01-2005, 06:30
I know he wasnt saying that--he misunderstood me. I was just asken a rhetorical question
Ohhhhh.
I see.
Skapedroe
10-01-2005, 06:30
Skapedroe should know better then to think me standing up for Rumsfeld. ;)
I know--your values are the same as mine pretty much. Your German arent you? Is it true that Rummys relatives in Germany disowned him?
Armandian Cheese
10-01-2005, 06:31
Come on, how is targeting insurgent leaders terrorism?
Von Witzleben
10-01-2005, 06:32
I know--your values are the same as mine pretty much. Your German arent you? Is it true that Rummys relatives in Germany disowned him?
Yes I am. And I don't know. If I was related to him I would have my name changed.
Skapedroe
10-01-2005, 06:32
Ah ok. Misunderstandings all around then. :D
yeah that question wasnt aimed at you I was aiming it outward :D
Von Witzleben
10-01-2005, 06:33
Come on, how is targeting insurgent leaders terrorism?
How would targeting Bush and his croneys be terrorism? Yet if someone would try to puch his ticket, that would be the label he would get.
Skapedroe
10-01-2005, 06:33
Come on, how is targeting insurgent leaders terrorism?
its the way theyre doin it and besides the insurgents arent entirely wrong. If you lived in Iraq under the current conditions youd be an insurgent too no doubt
The Aryan Union
10-01-2005, 06:40
What's the problem? The US has adapted to find a new way to ensure victory in Iraq. Would you rather see more of your own soldiers dead? I find it ridiculous how many people choose to turn their backs on their own countrymen, or at the very least, the people fighting for the ideals they enjoy.
Andaluciae
10-01-2005, 06:40
The story is too vague to draw a conclusion whether it is terrorism or not.

oh yeah, and Skap, I might advise you as a devotee of watching the MKULTRA threads of the past that, well, you might want to minimize posting articles with minimum analysis in the post beyond catchphrases and the like.

I don't want you to go the way of the MKULTRA.
Ultra Cool People
10-01-2005, 06:43
Aww shucks and I thought all Iraq needed was a silver bullet of a National Election. Gosh, does that mean every neocon on this board was full of crap?
Well darn, and they said Bush had all the answers.

If the Salvador option is going to be anything like El Salvador we'll be training roaming death squads to terrorize the general populace. Well at least it's nice to know that they'll be so much better off than if Saddam was in power.
Von Witzleben
10-01-2005, 06:45
What's the problem? The US has adapted to find a new way to ensure victory in Iraq. Would you rather see more of your own soldiers dead? I find it ridiculous how many people choose to turn their backs on their own countrymen, or at the very least, the people fighting for the ideals they enjoy.
I find it ridiculouse how you asume everyone here is American. The US cannot win in Iraq. Nobody asked them to invade. Well, perhaps Haliburton and co. did. Nobody asked them to fight for US "ideals" over there. And nobody wants them to stay. And more giftwrapped jarheads will be send home untill they understand that.
Von Witzleben
10-01-2005, 06:46
I don't want you to go the way of the MKULTRA.
Or The Red Arrow.
Andaluciae
10-01-2005, 06:47
Or The Red Arrow.
*chuckles*
Niccolo Medici
10-01-2005, 12:50
**sigh** A few people actually would rather discuss the Salvador option with an open mind than dissmiss it outright as terrorism.

There is some wisdom in what is being said here...some. The notion that those who aid the insurgents now pay no cost is correct. Right now there is no reason NOT to aid insurgents in Iraq; the US is much more concerned with staying on the Suni's good side than punishing those who aid the insurgency indirectly.

This falls under one of the key failures of the entry strategy that Rummy perpatrated: Get the locals on your side. Right now there is no connection. no bonds of brotherhood between the Iraqi Suni population and US troops. US troops and administration have not managed to keep Shi'te ambitions from growing abrasive to the former Suni-controlled Iraq. US troops have not managed to turn infrastructure projects into PR projects; instead they have become prime targets for the insurgency.

Seriously folks, the entry strategy looks more and more like it was drawn up by a pathetic, grade-six strategist. Whoever hired these people should hang their head in shame. They all but told the insurgency what to hit, they showed more blind spots than effective responses, they went on the defensive almost immediately, they inadequetly funded large portions of much needed PR projects, the list goes on.

Right now I can tell you this: The Salvador option would greatly aid US efforts in quelling the insurgency it now faces. The good news ends there however. Long term costs are well known; using the Salvador option is basically equivilent with "scoarched earth" policies. By doing so you ensure the complete destruction of public morale and civil discourse, you literally trade short term security for long-term death of public discourse.

The Salvador option would be a last resort for an exit strategy; train up a thousand or more units of these so called "death squads" and let them loose upon Iraq as US troops pull out. They would effectively turn Iraq into a paramilitary state until a suitable dictator can wield them against the insurgency. Iraq would be a failed state before we even pulled out.

Not what I want to hear from the halls of the Pentagon. Its true you could limit the effect of these squads by keeping them small, keeping them on tight leashes, that sort of thing; but it shows a clear air of desperation in their strategy.
Ultra Cool People
10-01-2005, 14:21
How exactly is training death squads to indiscriminately kill men, women, and children not terrorism. I thought the great and noble purpose was to "Liberate" the Iraqi people from the terror of living with a tyrant. That was the third reason given by the way after we found no WMDs or links to AL Qaeda.

No this situation now is America using extreme measures to try and hold on to Iraq and oil. If this plan goes through in a year's time when US troops take fire from a village we'll send in a death squad. I'm sure Bush will call it by some sanitary euphemism like "Patriot Patrol".
Johnny Wadd
10-01-2005, 14:49
The US cannot win in Iraq.


How do you know this? Are you a psychic friend?


BTW I know that nobody wanted us there, esp you Europeans who were making billions off of Saddam Hussein.
Nsendalen
10-01-2005, 14:51
Billions eh?

I haven't seen any of the fortune I'm supposed to have simply because I opposed the war :/
East Canuck
10-01-2005, 14:53
How do you know this? Are you a psychic friend?


BTW I know that nobody wanted us there, esp you Europeans who were making billions off of Saddam Hussein.
Like all European made billions :rolleyes:
You obviously forgot Poland's stance :rolleyes:
And like Halliburton didn't get money off the SAME scandal :rolleyes:
John Browning
10-01-2005, 15:15
Billions eh?

I haven't seen any of the fortune I'm supposed to have simply because I opposed the war :/

Well, you aren't a member of the UN who got money from oil for food (and it's apparent now from UN sources that it happened, so don't tell me it didn't).

You aren't a French oil company, either.
Nsendalen
10-01-2005, 15:18
How do you know this? Are you a psychic friend?


BTW I know that nobody wanted us there, esp you Europeans who were making billions off of Saddam Hussein.

Tell him that, Browning :/
John Browning
10-01-2005, 15:36
Tell him that, Browning :/

I think the point people are missing is that while "countries" may voice opposition to a war, and some civilians may voice opposition to a war, the entities that may or may not actually have any real voice in whether or not a war happens are:

Corporations (French, US, Russian, or otherwise)
Really rich people (Mark Rich, Cheney, etc.)

They also make money coming and going on this sort of thing. It's not just the US corporations, it's corporations everywhere that are struggling over the resources.
Bunglejinx
10-01-2005, 15:38
What's the problem? The US has adapted to find a new way to ensure victory in Iraq. Would you rather see more of your own soldiers dead? I find it ridiculous how many people choose to turn their backs on their own countrymen, or at the very least, the people fighting for the ideals they enjoy.

Yeah, wanting to be humane and not kill civilians sure is a way of turning backs on our troops.
Eutrusca
10-01-2005, 15:41
so in other words terrorism is ok so long as the American govt is sponsoring it?
Yep! Learn to like it, chump! :D
John Browning
10-01-2005, 15:41
Yeah, wanting to be humane and not kill civilians sure is a way of turning backs on our troops.

Civilians get killed in war. So, we should have never invaded Germany during WW II, because we might kill millions of innocent Germans (which we did, wholesale)...

The US isn't perfect about not killing civilians, but they're a whole lot better than they used to be. This is one of the first major wars the US has fought with a mind to keeping civilian casualties down. Something that was never a consideration in Vietnam.
Eutrusca
10-01-2005, 15:42
America has been using terrorism for decades
Yep! Learn to live with it, dude! :D
Zeppistan
10-01-2005, 15:55
My favoutire quote from that article:

The idea that:


"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."


Really? Falluja, where all men between 15 and 50 were forced to stay within city limits during a battle was "cost free"? No fresh water or sanitation, intermittent power, no jobs, and no security whilst under military rule is some sort of holiday for these people?

And how do you expect to "charge" them for this support? Random executions? Take away their food too?

You will have to become as bad as Saddam was to quell an insurgency by applying some "cost" to this support by targetting the civillian population in a blanket fashion. At that point, the last possible excuse for the invasion flies completely out the window.

"Saddam was an evil man who brutally repressed rebellious Kurds and Shiites. " simply translates to "The US brutally represses rebellious Sunni's".

Any remaining moral high ground - of which there is precious little left - dies with such a tactic.
Bunnyducks
10-01-2005, 15:56
Well, you aren't a member of the UN who got money from oil for food (and it's apparent now from UN sources that it happened, so don't tell me it didn't).


Don't know what to say really. Do you mean the alleged bribes? The Volcker report for United Nations' Office of Internal Oversight Services is due out today, right? What I gathered from the leaked stuff in NYT, is that there wasn't clear signs of bribery or corruption. Instead there were many many other problems.

Mr. Volcker said that the internal audits "don't prove anything," but do show how the United Nations was urged to tighten up its supervision of the program. "There's no flaming red flags in the stuff," he said.

Well, it's an internal audit anyways... I kinda trust they are wiser than to put the bribes in black and white in their books...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/09/international/middleeast/09nations.html
John Browning
10-01-2005, 16:00
"Saddam was an evil man who brutally repressed rebellious Kurds and Shiites. " simply translates to "The US brutally represses rebellious Sunni's".


One reason I think that Sunnis are on the receiving end is that our government associates 9-11 (however remote a possibility) with Sunnis (well, Wahhabis are really just the extreme version of the Sunnis).

Bad Sunnis! Bad!

One might have thought that a better tactic for insurgents (given that they know we plan on leaving after installing a government), would be to lie low until the US leaves (leaving a weak government in place), and then let all hell break loose and take the place over again. The quieter it gets, the sooner the US will leave (at this point).
Zeppistan
10-01-2005, 16:18
One reason I think that Sunnis are on the receiving end is that our government associates 9-11 (however remote a possibility) with Sunnis (well, Wahhabis are really just the extreme version of the Sunnis).

Bad Sunnis! Bad!

One might have thought that a better tactic for insurgents (given that they know we plan on leaving after installing a government), would be to lie low until the US leaves (leaving a weak government in place), and then let all hell break loose and take the place over again. The quieter it gets, the sooner the US will leave (at this point).

Well, for starters, if the government is equating Iraqi Sunnis to Saudi Wahabis, then they are even more incompetent than I thought. Might as well start targetting Catholics for Tim McVeigh....

And, for enders, where the hell is my $20?


You owe me!
John Browning
10-01-2005, 16:26
Yes, I do owe you!

One might also surmise that the reason we have so much trouble with the Sunnis in Iraq is that they were the party on top during Saddam.

They took whatever they wanted and killed when they wanted.

Now we've ruined their fun, and they want to fight to keep those privileges.

They're willing to die for the right to keep gassing Kurds and taking the lands of the Shiites. Willing to die for the right to put 300,000 people in mass graves. Saddam did not do these things on his own - the Sunnis were more than willing participants in that.

It would appear that they're willing to kill as many Americans and other Iraqis as it takes to get that right back.
Armed Bookworms
10-01-2005, 17:12
so in other words terrorism is ok so long as the American govt is sponsoring it?
Ah, good old Skapy. Unless the government conducts policy that ends in wholesale slaughter of innocents, it really isn't terrorism. Now, if we adopt the Salvador option and it does lead to massive civilian casualties, then you can rant and rave all you want. Until then, STFU. :cool:
Armed Bookworms
10-01-2005, 17:16
One might have thought that a better tactic for insurgents (given that they know we plan on leaving after installing a government), would be to lie low until the US leaves (leaving a weak government in place), and then let all hell break loose and take the place over again. The quieter it gets, the sooner the US will leave (at this point).
They can't allow that. If it gets quiet enough, Iraq will start to prosper. If that happens, the Shiites and Kurds would never allow the Sunni's control over the country again.
Guntailsica
10-01-2005, 17:17
My ideals are represented by the insurgents. and i had a cousin who went to Iraq (and worked in a hospital healing both Iraqis and Americans) so don't tell me about patriotism.
Armed Bookworms
10-01-2005, 17:17
Don't know what to say really. Do you mean the alleged bribes? The Volcker report for United Nations' Office of Internal Oversight Services is due out today, right? What I gathered from the leaked stuff in NYT, is that there wasn't clear signs of bribery or corruption. Instead there were many many other problems.
The internal report compiled at the behest of one Kofi Annan, correct? Are you that surprised they didn't find anything?
Pershikia
10-01-2005, 17:25
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.

I recall that they did that in Afghanistan too (during the cold war) .
Bunnyducks
10-01-2005, 17:28
The internal report compiled at the behest of one Kofi Annan, correct? Are you that surprised they didn't find anything?
You didn't bother to read the whole of my message then? I remember saying something about it being an internal audit...
Yeknomia
11-01-2005, 22:15
I have many republican friends who despise the Iraqis for attacking us while we are in their homeland. Yet I'm sure most of you, if your region is invaded by a group of militant foreigners, you would gather up your local people and join an army to fight them off. This is precisely what they are doing.

Many say that we came into Iraq because of terrorism. Let me tell you people something: The only "Terrorist" in Iraq was saddam hussein, and the last act of hostility he did was more than 10 years ago. NOW we come in and call them thugs and terrorists??? There were NO TERRORISTS!!! An explanation: when you hear about al zarqawi and friends, those are "terrorist" organizations created AS A RESULT OF OUR INVASION. We give the Iraqis a reason to attack us by going there.

Why, do you ask, we went there in the first place? I know! To bravely and boldly spread freedom and democracy abroad because of our goodness! BULLCRAP. Oil, money, oil.

I'm done.
Robbopolis
12-01-2005, 09:48
I have many republican friends who despise the Iraqis for attacking us while we are in their homeland. Yet I'm sure most of you, if your region is invaded by a group of militant foreigners, you would gather up your local people and join an army to fight them off. This is precisely what they are doing.

Then why are Iraqi casualties from the insurgents about 10 times that of the US troops?

I don't have any problem with this idea to combat teh insurgents. About the only thing that could be better is if the US sent in the assasin teams, whether it's Special Forces or CIA.