BTW, what’s the moral difference between beheading and shooting someone? Either way they are dead. Maybe it’s more moral to lock them up in Cuba less than ideal circumstances, torture them and come up with ideas to keep them for the rest of their lives with no trial and no charges filed. There ain’t no white hats in Iraq right now.
I’m afraid you are all wrong here. Training of death squads does not lead to the assassination of insurgency leaders. It leads to gangs breaking into the opposition’s houses at night, raping the wife & daughter then taking a machete to the whole family.
Then we’ll all look back on the good old days when people only got their heads cut off. But with good old Yankee knowhow we now have a murder-state.
A way to victory without killing the opposition? Well what “victory” are we looking for- I say partition and get the hell out. And tell Turkey to eat it if they don’t like it.
Partition isn’t viable, for gods sake, we won’t just pack up and leave and let the Iraqis go to those dogs just because we couldn’t take a few casualties, or the resolve isn’t there, even though it clearly is.
What will happen is this, and I’ll say it numerous times. Iraq after the elections, will set its course onto be coming federalised, once thats happened, the general population will see guerilla activity coming from the extremists/Sunni Minority, because they oppose those who are considered ‘apostates’ having majority rule within Iraq, within time, their legitimacy and resolve will wither away as they find out the Sunnis they claim to be fighting for are sick and tired of being stereotyped as the violent terrorist minority, and will eventually enter the process wholeheartedly, because as it will find out, that will be the only way to secure its rights.
Well, no actually. The opposition is led by Jordanians (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi), Saudis (Ahmad Sayyid Ahmad al-Ghamdi) and other foreigners. The Islamic Fascists are an international movement as Islam does not recognize international frontiers.
While leaving the Iraqi people to these wolves might appeal to some, it seems quite immoral to me. Having gotten the people of Iraq into this situation, it is out responsibility to keep them safe as they elect a government.
Further, pulling out of Iraq would not calm the Fascists. They would seize Iraq, destroy the moderates (as Moqtada al-Sadr had Abdul Majid al-Khoei wacked) and us this new, larger Afghanistan to plot fund and execute bigger and better attacks on the West.
These people want to kill us. I would propose that fighting them is a better path than letting them have their way. We are in a war for our lives. It was, is and will be nasty and brutish. Some of you who are more delicate might wish to avert your eyes.
In any case, I would point out that giving these people what they want will simply result in more deaths in our homelands sooner and for a longer time.
Let us fight this war and win it.
Obviously, the Iraqi insurgents haven’t assassinated President Bush. However, they did just assassinate Baghdad’s deputy police chief. Last Tuesday, they assassinated the governor of Baghdad. There also have been assassinations and attempted assassinations of various political candidates and regional goverment officials.
“If [we] had ten divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly.”
The horror, indeed.
I’m kind of ambivalent about “death squads”. If you really think the U.S. should use them, here’s some advice:
-
Don’t subcontarct your killing, and don’t subcontract your intelligence. If you don’t have the courage of your convictions to do something yourself, you shouldn’t do it at all. If you need info, find it out yourself.
-
Maintain control and accountability. Targets should be chosen at the corps command or higher, and any operation should be approved on record by the President of the United States, after he has received a full intel briefing on the individual involved and on the proposed operation. That won’t prevent tragedies and abuses, but it may minimize them.
-
Think carefully about what you’re about to do. Once you go down that road, there’s no way back. I don’t like the term “paradigm shift”, but that’s basically what you’ll get with your war.
Agreed.
Ambivalent? :dubious:
I don’t think ambivalent is what anyone should be when it comes to death squads. As a rule, death squads tend to be unaccountable, corrupt and brutal.
I agree. I have no problem whatsoever with insurgent leaders being assassinated. But this needs to be done by the US military (preferably special forces) with full accounting by top level - including the president.
Of course, the current plan of using Kurdish Peshmergi fighters to be the death squad crews doesn’t sound like the “command and control” vision being extolled here. Sounds a lot more like the “indiscriminate rape, torture and murder” squads from El Salvador.
I object to this paramilitary idea being so quickly labeled as death squads. The article we’re debating leaves open the idea that these paramilitaries could capture the insurgencies leaders. Certainly, that’s the approach I’d prefer, if it is practical. Taking Zarqawi alive would be an intelligence coup that, if successfully exploited, could help the US get out faster, and put the Iraqi government on a better footing.
For those who oppose this idea and support a withdrawal of American troops, I’d love to hear your idea of how the Iraqi government would survive the onslaught of terrorist violence, given that the government has no effective police, national guard, or military. Or do you naively think that all the violence will simply disappear after the Americans leave?
That may in fact be the only way to fight such a war. In the movie “A Bright and Shining Lie”, Bill Paxton’s character says something to the effect that Vietnam would not be a war won with “this” (a photo of a B-52 dropping its bombs) it would be won with this (holds up a knife). The point being that every stray bomb or blown up house pisses people off and adds to the insurgency. We are already targeting insurgents and their leaders for “assassination”. We mind as well use a method that doesn’t take the entire city block with it. Such squads would force insurgents to operate in larger groups that can provide more security, making them targets for the heavier weapons and aircraft.
The problem as I see it, and has already been mentioned, is that while it might tactically work, it doesn’t send that great of a message considering that liberating Iraq from death squads was one of the reasons we are there in the first place.
Neither do we.
This argument has a lot of appeal, it is a position I am reluctantly abandoning. Yes, it was wrong to get the Iraqi people into this situation, and we should fix it, if possible. Its those last two words where the trouble lies. I know longer believe that it is possible. There is no superior morality in squandering lives to postpone the inevitable.
Why should we believe that they would have better luck “seizing” Iraq that we have had?
Perhaps. It could also be hyperventilated hyperbole. So far, the only citizens we are losing are the ones we deliberately put in harm’s way, to no rational purpose that I can see.
This phrasing suggests that those who disagree with you are wimpy and lilly-livered. If unintentional, it is unfortunate, if intentional, it is a slur. With all due respect, if such an argument isn’t beneath you, it ought to be.
Conjecture. Founded on nothing. The deaths of our our citizens, as pointed out above, are occuring because they are there. Where they shouldn’t be, or at the very least, not there without a clearly defined and acheivable goal. Which would be what, exactly?
Stirring words, and like so many stirring words, short of content. What would “winning” mean? The obeisance and subservience of the entire Muslim world? A bourgeois, parliamentary Iraq with white picket fences, Starbucks franchises, and an unflinching devotion to US policy? Or simply holding the lid on long enough to get the Hell out of BaghDodge? Please, if possible, confine your definition to goals you regard as definitely acheivable, with the resources at our command, and in our lifetime.
There’s another issue. How would we be sure that they’d be, or stay, “our” guys? There’ve been a disturbing number of stories about how easy the US-allied forces, and even the camp employees (like the one who blew up the mess tent in Mosul) have been to infiltrate. One consequence of the nihilistic approach we used was to make background checks impossible or at least not credible. Who is there we can truly trust?
I can see a fair number of these teams saying “Thanks, foreign invaders, for giving us the weapons and training with which you will now die”.
I agree, assasination is a useful tool, and probably more “humane” (as ghastly as that sounds) then the blunter tools available to the military. However, it should not be done by poorly trained locals with uncertain alleigences and an unclear chain of command. It should be done by U.S. special forces, and no-one else.
Consider this: even if it does work, and the insurgency is suppresed and peace is brought to the nation, you’re still left with Iraqis killing Iraqis. These are people who, in the end, will have to live with the loved ones of the people they killed. Even if they’re Kurds, they’ll still have to be part of a united Iraq. No, best all the killing be done by foreigners, by outsiders. It’ll be healthier fo the country as a whole.
Oh please, outside of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, when has this ever happened?
Mosul a couple of weeks ago, for instance. I mentioned that already.
I agree. It’s a problem. There is no way that the US could have done any serious vetting of the 150,000 plus Iraqi policemen and soldiers who are now on the job.
However, I’d hope that if we were to take the lead in recruiting and training a much smaller force – perhaps in the hundreds – then we’d have a better idea of who these people are. Hell, take the small number of Iraqi policemen and soldiers who have done well and acted professionally, and make them the basis of a paramilitary force.
That won’t eliminate the risk of spies, sabateurs, and infiltration. But do you propose that we stop training the police and armed forces that are already rife with these double agents? Standing still is just not an option. In my view, we have to do something to leave the Iraqi government in a better position AND begin troop withdrawals if we have any hope of preventing Iraq from becoming a completely failed state (a la Somalia).
I’d still like to hear some ideas from those who oppose this paramilitary idea about what the US should be doing to secure a peaceful Iraq, other than simply pulling out. Do you have any ideas at all? Anything? Or is your only policy suggestion a full and immediate retreat?
Wow, talk about ‘hyperventilated hyperbole’ 'luce. Pot calling the kettle black. You saying the US doesn’t recognize ‘international frontiers’ in the same way that terrorist don’t, ehe? All this from an invasion of Iraq…interesting.
This is true…but only if we assume that you know the future and what will happen. Unfortunately said future is a bit less clear to me. Perhaps if you could give me the winning lottery number for next week in New Mexico (please email it secretly…I don’t want any other Dopers cashing in :)) I’ll respect your powers of fortune telling more and join you in the dark side. Until then though, as it IS still unclear to me that the situation is hopeless, I’ll continue to feel that the US broke it, the US should have the heart to stay there until its fixed, or at least stable.
Oh, easy one. Same way the Taliban siezed Afghanistan after the Soviets lost heart and bolted. By using tactics that would turn even the most hardened Soviets stomach…let alone an American/Englishman. While we certainly kill civilians with every bomb we drop, we don’t DELIBERATELY target them. The folks who will still be there after we flee won’t be bothered by it though. A village has some resistance fighters to the new regime in it? Wipe out the village instead of screwing around targetting a house or two. People not coming around? Send in some shlup with a bomb strapped to his chest into a crowded market or on a bus…that will teach them. I have no doubts that after a long and bloody civil war that makes whats happened in Iraq from the invasion to today look like a picnic SOMEONE will sieze control.
I’m sure you’ll be able to sit back with a clear consious too and say something to the effect that the Iraq people decided for themselves what they wanted, and that the massive death toll from the years of civil war were all ultimately the US’s fault…but that there was nothing we could do. Myself, I won’t be able to do that if there was still a chance that the US staying there could have prevented the same slaughter we saw in Vietnam when the US tucked tail and left it up to the South Vietnamese.
I agree with you that in the short term Iraq is unlikely to produce an external terrorist capability to threaten the US. I think Pauls point though was that, if a Taliban type regime DOES win control of Iraq, a distinct possibility, then its more than possible that in the future, say a decade or so down the road, we’ll face a regime that CAN export terrorism…and has the resources not only of a nation state, but of an oil rich nation state behind them.
The irony of course is that a decade from now we may be faced with yet another invasion of Iraq because of this if we fail to deal with this now. I can’t even conceive of the death toll on the Iraqi people if America bolts…potentially years of civil war, Taliban type rule (or perhaps Iranian style revolutionary counsils), and perhaps yet another invasion by the US against Iraq a la Afghanistan. You see gloom and doom now…I see it in the potential future.
-XT
A number of us have often urged partitioning of the country among the factions we can easily predict would be (or perhaps are) on the various sides of the civil war, with a line of blue helmets to separate them. A president with some credibility could have *made * that happen, but probably Bush cannot, and the best approach might be for him to let the UN do it without public objection. He’d first have to drop the whispering campaign aimed at discrediting Annan, though.
So no, I don’t see any more realistic possibility of a peaceful transition even to another dictatorship, much less the pipedream of a US-friendly democracy. Yes, we have a responsibility to those people, but we have a greater responsibility to our own, and yes, a complete pullout is the best thing we can do for them.
Do you have any realistic options of your own to present that would stop the civil war?