Pentagon's new strategy in Iraq, a smart move?

[Alien]

I havent’ seen this discussed before, and it would be interesting to hear what fellow dopers might think of it.

According to a recent article in The New Yorker, Pentagon is utilizing a new approach for fighting insurgents in Iraq. This new strategy, dubbed “Manhunts”, is created by people close to Rumsfeld. With the aid of military personnel from Israel who has experience from fighting in the occupied territories, Pentagon is putting together “hit squads” designated to take out middle rank individuals engaged in fighting US presence in Iraq. The tactic is to resuscitate parts of Saddams intelligence services to infiltrate the insurgents, then have hit teams act upon their information.

… Israeli commandos and intelligence units have been working closely with their American counterparts at the Special Forces training base at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and in Israel to help them prepare for operations in Iraq. Israeli commandos are expected to serve as ad-hoc advisers - again, in secret - when full-field operations begin. (Neither the Pentagon nor Israeli diplomats would comment. “No one wants to talk about this,” an Israeli official told me. “It’s incendiary. Both governments have decided at the highest level that it is in their interests to keep a low profile on U.S.-Israeli cooperation” on Iraq.)
…
An American who has advised the civilian authority in Baghdad said, "The only way we can win is to go unconventional. We’re going to have to play their game. Guerrilla versus guerrilla. Terrorism versus terrorism. We’ve got to scare the Iraqis into submission.

Of course, others are not convinced:

Many of them fear that the proposed operation - called “preemptive manhunting” by one Pentagon adviser - has the potential to turn into another Phoenix Program. Phoenix was the code name for a counter-insurgency program that the U.S. adopted during the Vietnam War, in which Special Forces teams were sent out to capture or assassinate Vietnamese believed to be working with or sympathetic to the Vietcong.

On a sidenote, two key figures deeply involved in this program is Pentagon’s Stephen Cambone and his military assistant William (Jerry) Boykin. Boykin has been in the news lately:

In October, the Los Angeles Times reported that Boykin, while giving Sunday-morning talks in uniform to church groups, had repeatedly equated the Muslim world with Satan. Last June, according to the paper, he told a congregation in Oregon that “Satan wants to destroy this nation, he wants to destroy us as a nation, and he wants to destroy us as a Christian army.” Boykin praised President Bush as a “man who prays in the Oval Office,” and declared that Bush was “not elected” President but “appointed by God.”

The debate:

• is this a smart move by Pentagon? Do you think they will have more success fighting insurgents than they have had so far?
• even if we assume that the Israeli presence (the “commandos”) is as advisers, and not as fighters, can we still expect their presence to go unnoticed in Iraq? What impact could that have on Iraqi resistance, and for that matter on public opinion in the rest of the ME?
• since setting up a successful undercover intelligence network is hardly something that’s done in a few months or maybe even within a year, is this a sign that Pentagon expects the fighting to continue for a long time ahead? If so, would public opinion really care?

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031215fa_fact
.

[Boo_Boo_Foo]

Was it a smart move by the Pentagon? Militarily, yeah sure, I don’t have a problem with it. As for letting the story get leaked? Dumb move… dumb, dumb move…

Do I think there will be greater success fighting insurgents? Hmmm… that’s a hard one to measure… insofar as you only have success when nothing is happening anymore… and even then they might still be planning, huh?

I’ve said it before - singularly the most effective and inarguable means of nullifying insurgency within Iraq is to demonstrably improve (as quickly as possible) the quality of lifestyle of the average Iraqi - from the poorest all the way through to the richest. This means the whole gamut - education, civil institutions, the courts, hospitals, policing, industrial infrastructure etc etc. The general consensus is that stable democracies require a minimum level of GDP per capita per annum to survive - anything less and you have too fertile a soil for fanaticism and nasty shit.

[Roland_Saul]

Yeah, sure, death squads are a reasonable way to ensure a free and democratic society, of course. First bombs, then razor wire, then imprisonment without trial, then death squads. Simple really…

Give them freedom even if it means killing them, seizing their national assests to pay the bill of conquering them, and forcing them to obey your commands. Sounds reasonable to me.

[Vezer]

There was an Op-ed in the Wall Street Journal a few days back (sorry no link, have to be a subscriber) in which the author outlined the successes of SF Operations in Afghanistan. Basically before the outbreak of fighting, SF units numbered around 200 and were given the mission to form an insurgent army. They did, and it gave a grand footing for US forces in a hostile state.

To this day these “death squad” (cough cough) operations have been enourmously successful in killing low to mid range officals with the remenant forces. The problem is that beauricratic Pentagon vertical planning is preventing these remote firebase teams from neutralizing mid to high up figures. Basically intel gets stale whilst in the system to be made into a mission.

Unfortunatly Roland I get a firm feeling you have no comprehension of logistical costs and means (death squads" required to fight a hostile force.

[London_Calling]

Or . . . the US could always invite in the UN to do it’s speciality ‘nation building’ and/or hold free elections?
Thought not.

[glee]

It’s bound to succeed.

There are of course only a limited number of terrorists, so once you kill them all, the violence will immediately stop. (Any civilian casualties incurred are of course necessary.)

This strategy has already worked for Israel in the Middle East…

[elucidator]

Do I detect a note of sarcasm?

[ITR_champion]

Of course we don’t have all the necessary information to judge this program available right now, but let me offer my thoughts. Throughout the long summer months, the Bush Administration claimed that remnants of Saddam’s regime were the only significant resistance we were encountering n Iraq. Later, in the fall, officials backed away from that stance and claimed that various Shi’ite groups, possibly backed by bin Laden, were also launching attacks against the occupying forces. In the weeks since Saddam’s capture, I haven’t heard any official announcements on the topic, but most American media outlets seem to be saying once again that it’s all the fault of Saddam’s supporters.

But I’ve noticed one topic coming up in many alternate media sources that aren’t controlled by American corporations. Specifically, that of local militias in Iraq. I first read about this in The New Republic last May, and I’ve seen it brought up both in the BBC and the Telegraph as well as on various web sources. The basic story is that throughout Iraq, various small groups are organizing gathering weapons, and generally planning to try maximizing their own power in the upcoming government. Now, as I see it, it depends on who’s telling the truth. If it really is “remnants” of Saddam’s regime, we take out those remnants and it’s over. But if these local groups are responsible, then they may only grow more powerful as the fighting continues because people view them as fighting against an occupying army.

[London_Calling]

Seymour Hersh is normally quite interesting and sometimes has the inside track but this article is pure stocking filler.

All he’s describing is old fashioned HUMIT, the kind of thing the US/CIA decided it could do without in the 80s when all it’s new and shiny state of the art satellites “could read a license plate from space”.

And the US decided, in INTEL reviews post 9/11, that HUMIT had to be re-nurtured, as the rest of the Intel community always had. As it so happens, the UK in particular.

What’s the old favourite, the CIA didn’t have a single spy in the Afghan/Iraq/Iran region by 1990 ?

I don’t believe there’s anything new in this article (aside from giving air to another Israeli connection), it’s just Seymour filling some space between adverts – unless I missed something . . .

[Squink]

This article contains links to many sources of information on the Pentagon’s new strategy: If You Can’t Beat 'Em, Hire 'Em: Rumsfeld and the Assassins

[Roland_Saul]

In what way precisely is the US force in Iraq NOT an occupying army?

[DWMarch]

*Originally posted by London_Calling *
**Seymour Hersh is normally quite interesting and sometimes has the inside track but this article is pure stocking filler.

All he’s describing is old fashioned HUMIT, the kind of thing the US/CIA decided it could do without in the 80s when all it’s new and shiny state of the art satellites “could read a license plate from space”.

And the US decided, in INTEL reviews post 9/11, that HUMIT had to be re-nurtured, as the rest of the Intel community always had. As it so happens, the UK in particular.

What’s the old favourite, the CIA didn’t have a single spy in the Afghan/Iraq/Iran region by 1990 ?

I don’t believe there’s anything new in this article (aside from giving air to another Israeli connection), it’s just Seymour filling some space between adverts – unless I missed something . . . **

Not to nitpick but it’s HUMINT for Human Intelligence, the dependable old Mark I Eyeball.

[Squink]

*Originally posted by Roland Saul *
**In what way precisely is the US force in Iraq NOT an occupying army? **

In this way:

For political reasons, leaders declared that U.S. forces were “liberating forces” rather than occupying forces. This may have caused military commanders to be reluctant to use the full power granted to occupying forces to accomplish our legitimate objectives.

Third Infantry Division (Mechanized) After Action Report - Operation Iraqi Freedon

[elucidator]

The strategy: establish a stable autocracy in Iraq, and start removing troops in time for the Support Our President and Re-elect Our Heroic Troops Rally scheduled for summer/fall of next year.

How? Well, first we must start with a select cadre of idealistic Iraqis, men of proven loyalty to democratic ideals, as evidenced by a fawning obeisance to us. The British know all about this sort of thing, picking an ethnic/religious group to interface with the colony. Its worked wonderfully well in the past.

But where to find such a man? Someone with a deep committment to our vision of a democratic Iraq made up of small shopkeepers and Starbucks entreprenuers, a man of sterling character who can easily shun the temptations of power. Someone who has proven himself to be a major source of intelligence, of whatever quality. Say, what’s Ahmed Chalabi doing these days?

Next, de-Baathification. Oh, no, not throwing out all the former Baathist, hell, they were all Baathists. No, we mean scrubbing clean the records, bringing forth a new cadre of Iraqi intelligence who are famliar with the skills of a police state, but have managed to stay aloof from anything provable.

Next, we sic 'em on our enemies, a task they approach with total enthusiasm because, now that they are collaborliberators, they are thier enemies as well! Of course, we don’t know diddly-squat, so we’ll just have to take thier word for it. When they come in with a head in a bag and say “Achmed. Resistance leader” we’ll write them a check and say “Splendid work!” Since these are men who have proven thier bona fides, we can rely on thier integrity. Yes.

Necessarily, these men will require considerable leeway to accomplish our ends, wouldn’t do to inquire too closely. A discreet avoidance of direct observation will serve our purposes well.

With the establishment of a network of informants, spies, and secret police, things will get a lot quieter. Given these men’s previous experience in matters of public democracy, we can expect any number of “Gosh! How we really really love the Americans” demonstrations, similar in universal enthusiasm to the pro-Saddam demonstrations that greeted his recent re-election.

Of course, if anyone were to look too closely, he would see that we have re-established the same Sunni/Tikriti power base as before. Saddism without Saddam. But it will be stable. And we will insist that they make utterly sincere promises to move towards popular democracy. With all prudent haste.

With any luck at all, we can postpone the debacle until well after next November, when it can be blamed on Clinton.

“Meet the new Boss! Same as the old Boss!..”

[sailor]

>> This new strategy, dubbed “Manhunts”. . .

Probably old by now. The US has a “new strategy” in Iraq several times a week. Some of us see it as “stumbling in the dark” or as “running around in all directions like a confused chicken”.

[Alien]

What I was thinking when I was reading this was that if this turn out as a symbol for American presence in Iraq, american soldiers may soon get a very bad reputation. It shouldn’t take more than 2-3 bad missions with civilian casualties, before the term “death squads” is used in every paper all around the world.

The second thing that hit me was the Israeli presence. If the rest of the middle east perceives this as an expansion of Israel’s military operations in Palestine to other ME countries, it would probably be easier for armed anti-Israel/anti-American groups to recruit more people, as well as trigger resistance amongst Iraqis who until know has stood silent. I don’t think may Iraqis enjoyed living under Saddam, but I bet even fewer would accept an Israeli presence in their own land.

I guess we’ll just have to see how this plays out.

[Aldebaran]

Alien,

No need to wait the MENA and the rest of Muslim nations to “perceive” anything. It is common knowledge that Israel was involved in Iraq long before the first US bomb dropped in this invasion = long before the first US soldier “officially” invaded.

It was also common knowledge, long before any US based media brought that great news to the US media reading public, that US military was trained by Israel in the Israeli tactics to use tanks to flatten houses and to cut through walls of houses to create pass through inside a whole block… Just like they do in Palestinian territory.

And I don’t even speak here about this being common knowledge in the region itself. In fact, I became even first informed about it by non-ME/non Islamic related sources.

Maybe you have read about it in your press as well. And maybe as well about how some US soldiers struggle with their commands to even tie up little children of 2/3 years old, because they are possible “insurgents” when driven together with their mothers in a corner of their own house.

Yes, the “image” of the US soldier is really that of a liberating friend… You only need to stay out of sight when you see one I guess.

Salaam . A

[elucidator]

…that US military was trained by Israel in the Israeli tactics to use tanks to flatten houses and to cut through walls of houses to create pass through inside a whole block…

Trained? Is there some special expertise required to flatten a house with a tank? I don’t get this.

What I entirely understand is that anything that highlights and draws attention to the US devotion to Israel can only underline and emphasize the antipathy of the Arab world to the US.

“I’ll take “Shit We REALLY Don’t Need” for a thousand, Mr. Trebecque…”

[Aldebaran]

eluci…

Let me refrase it.
There are some specific tactics aimed at destroying civil quarters which also imply the use of tanks, that were taught by the Israelis to the US military.
If the inhabitants are lucky, they get a few minutes notice in advance, so they can run out before they see all they have flattened. (So pitty if you are lame or can’t move because you are a baby or can’t be moved because you are alone)

This tactic can shortly be called : terrorism targetting civilian population. But that isn’t what it is called by those doing it.
They call it “search for terrorists”… Of course overlooking the fact that those who occupy nations are terrorists in any case.

Salaam. A

[Roland_Saul]

So Squink, as soon as the occupying army says they are not occupying but actually “liberating”, then they cease to occupy the country through armed force and the razor wire,armed patrols and curfews vanish??

Ok…thanks. Dunno how I didn’t see it before.