News & Politics - Possible U.S. Supported 'Death Squads' In Iraq Allegedly Being Discussed

ceilirose · 01-09-2005, 05:13 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/

Quote:

The Salvador Option’
The Pentagon may put Special-Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Hirsh and John Barry
Newsweek
Updated: 5:33 p.m. ET Jan. 8, 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 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.

TokyoNiGHTS · 01-09-2005, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success—despite the deaths of innocent civilians

Why isn't this a surprise?

Wild Pikachu · 01-09-2005, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TokyoNiGHTS

Why isn't this a surprise?

Um, because to be a neo-con not caring about the deaths of innocent civilians is pretty much mandatory? I don't think they let you in otherwise.

LittleMilkJug · 01-09-2005, 07:30 AM

What are innocent civilians??? Just colateral, just colateral.!!

TokyoNiGHTS · 01-09-2005, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wild Pikachu

Um, because to be a neo-con not caring about the deaths of innocent civilians is pretty much mandatory? I don't think they let you in otherwise.

It certainly seems like that. The excuse they use in cases like this is that "It shows I love my country more than you do".

UnsilentMajorty · 01-09-2005, 08:12 AM

First, this just reaks of Vietnam all over again when we were supposedly not sending Special Forces into Cambodia and Laos to stop a lot of the Vietcong supply lines and russian advisors which has now been more or less confirmed that we did conduct illegal operations in a country we had no right to do so.

Second, this is a pandora's box waiting to be opened... Even moreso than when we invaded Iraq.

If they do go with this option... What is to stop our Special Forces from covertly operating in Iran, Lybia, Syria and anywhere else we deem "appropriate". Hell, what about North Korea as there is a potential "terrorist threat" there as well (legitimate or not).

This opens up the possibility for the U.S. to legally topple the governments and take over the Middle-East in a "bloodless" way. Why invade countries when you can kidnap and intimidate the leaders of the region whom don't want "democracy or freedom?"

While I respect our armed forces and our Special Forces Operators (Green Berets; SEALS; Delta Force; Rangers; etc.), I bet a lot of these operations would in fact be carried out by Spooks (Spies) and basically mercenaries (Mercs) whom aren't beholden to any code of ethics (The UMCJ) and will kill and kidnap the wrong people as long as they get paid.

Also, my biggest fear... And it is a legitimate fear... Is what is to stop Rumsfeld and the CIA/NSA from using these methods on our own soil against our own people (citizens) who don't go along with the Bush agenda?

It all sounds like it is out of the latest Tom Clancy novel/movie... But with this administration, I don't put it past them to run the world this way as we are dealing with a fanatical, facist-like administration who in no way ressembles the America of the past, and or even conservative administrations of the past as well.

In addition... Wouldn't it be great if this administration actually put all of these resources to use in hunting down and killing Osama Bin Laden -- Whom actually attacked us -- And dismantling Al Queda?

TokyoNiGHTS · 01-09-2005, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnsilentMajorty

First, this just reaks of Vietnam all over again when we were supposedly not sending Special Forces into Cambodia and Laos to stop a lot of the Vietcong supply lines and russian advisors which has now been more or less confirmed that we did conduct illegal operations in a country we had no right to do so.

This is definetly our Vietnam. You've already got Bush coming out and saying that we can't win this war. So we're essentially in Iraq until Bush or someone decides to leave. It's a complete disaster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnsilentMajorty

If they do go with this option... What is to stop our Special Forces from covertly operating in Iran, Lybia, Syria and anywhere else we deem "appropriate". Hell, what about South Korea as there is a potential "terrorist threat" there as well (legitimate or not).

Because its US troops, certainly they'd never do something like that...

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnsilentMajorty

Is what is to stop Rumsfeld and the CIA/NSA from using these methods on our own soil against our own people (citizens) who don't go along with the Bush agenda?

Nothing. I think the Patriot Act in some ways is a direct step in that direction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnsilentMajorty

But with this administration, I don't put it past them to run the world this way as we are dealing with a fanatical, facist-like administration who in no way ressembles the America of the past, and or even conservative administrations of the past as well.

There's a reason why this country has become so hated, and why our president is now one of the most hated people in the entire world. Everything Bin Laden has told people to recruit them in Al Queda, Bush is backing with his actions. People wonder why Bin Laden has come out in awihle to recruit. Why should he when Bush is doing it for him? Bush is exactly what Al Queda needed, someone that proves what they've been saying. That Americans are a bunch of self centered people, who couldn't care less about the rest of the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnsilentMajorty

In addition... Wouldn't it be great if this administration actually put all of these resources to use in hunting down and killing Osama Bin Laden -- Whom actually attacked us -- And dismantling Al Queda?

You're asking for this admin to use common sense.

Seriously I give Bush credit for this, somehow he's managed to make a bunch of people in the US completely forget that Bin Laden is the person that had the US attacked. No Iraq, not Saddam, but Bin Laden. I'm pretty sure Bin Laden is thankful for that too. It almost seems like they've completely given up on him now. Bush even said in an interview that he's "not worried" about Bin Laden.

AuburnGrad · 01-09-2005, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnsilentMajorty

Wouldn't it be great if this administration actually put all of these resources to use in hunting down and killing Osama Bin Laden -- Whom actually attacked us -- And dismantling Al Queda?

The US gave Bin Laden his start by using similar tactics in the Soviet-Afghan War. Isn't it comforting to know that by forming these "death squads" the cycle will be repeated?

With insurgents infiltrating the coalition and Iraqi military and really no clear picture on who the "enemy" is, how can the Pentagon believe this will be effective? UnsilentMajority's right, Pandora's Box will be opened.

From the article...

Quote:

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

Sounds like terrorists to me. Nevermind the fact that the US invasion (under the guise of fighting the "war on terror", to rid Iraq of the terrorizing Hussein regime who ultimately posed no imminent threat) created the insurgents. Insurgents that for awhile Rumsfeld refused to admit even existed. The US created these groups and more and more Iraqis are joining the insurgency.

Bottom Line:
This war was ineptly planned and carried out from the start, and the worst part is the people in charge are still there. The US is coninuing to dig their holes deeper and deeper, and these "death squads" will only lead to more hatred and resentment toward Americans.

But, hey...at least Saddam is out of power.

**sum1** · 01-10-2005, 10:18 PM

About time. If they'd done something like this earlier they might have crushed the terrorists long ago and saved a lot of lives. There's been way too much pussyfooting in Iraq. Going easy on terrorists costs innocent lives.

TokyoNiGHTS · 01-11-2005, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sum1

About time. If they'd done something like this earlier they might have crushed the terrorists long ago and saved a lot of lives. There's been way too much pussyfooting in Iraq. Going easy on terrorists costs innocent lives.

Going hard on them does too. Oh wait those are Iraqi peoples lives, they certainly don't matter. Go right ahead!

You aren't going to get rid of terrorist, they'll keep coming and coming.

- annuscka - · 01-11-2005, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TokyoNiGHTS

Going hard on them does too. Oh wait those are Iraqi peoples lives, they certainly don't matter. Go right ahead!

You aren't going to get rid of terrorist, they'll keep coming and coming.

Yeah. And neither can you redeem terrorists - but you CAN STOP people from BECOMING terrorists by not providing them with any reason to do so! And yes, I realize that people will always find some reason to terrorize each other, but at least take care of the current reasons for the anti-Americanism. WITHOUT BLOOD. Because by killing the terrorists (who are NOT seen as terrorists by their people but as the guys that'll give them freedom) - you turn the whole people against you! You need to stop acting like the world police and interfere everywhere - it is horrible that there are dictatorships in the world, true. But it's not America's busniess to fix it! No one is asking you to do that! You take care of your land, and Sudan will take care of theirs. In an ideal world, of course. Sudan might not have been the most brilliant example, but my point is - you won't win anyone over by invading their country with the words "now now, we're going to give you freedom!". Freedom can't be GIVEN, then it won't mean as much as if it's EARNED. You can send aid to Sudan or Iraq or whatever you want, but NOT INVADE.

And yes, I realize that sometimes and maybe even often, dictators stop aid from reaching the country. But then you need to take CIVILIZED ACTIONS. Help the people overthrow the regime from the outside, smuggle in aid (as Berlin was air-bombed with food and supplises during the Berlin blockade) - DON'T go in an do it for the people! Then they will become just as dependent on you as they were on their dictator, and without a democratic movement towards overthrowing the regime, or a revolution - the people won't have the "maturity" to ever do it.

A hypothetical example:
County X has been living under dictatorship for decades and centuries. No one in the living generation has ever experienced any other rule.
The world has been watching the dictator rule this land for years and years, and they have known at least bits and pieces of what has been going on. But they haven't done anything in particular. The people of country X doesn't know a lot about the world - most have never been educated at all - and if they do know about the world, they are bitter about no one helping them.

That's pretty much the situation in any dictator-ruled country, I think. Uneducated people, onlooking world, lengthy rule. The people are too uneducated to be able to part what the leader says from the truth (or the relative truth - no islamist leader quotes the Quaran, he quotes his Quaran plus parts that fit his regime. No one thinks it's wrong because they've never heard anything else. Hence that women are treated badly when the Quaran actually tells men to treat them well.) The country is too far away from the west/rich world for us to really take notice, and they have no obvious nature rescourses. (If they do we have probably taken them already). So we don't care. Until we for some reason suddenly do.
Maybe it's oil, maybe it's a new radical regime on the upswing or maybe it's some other reason. But suddenly the world takes interest and starts talking about saving the people.

And then they invade, to 90% certainty throw out the leader and then follows a period or varying length of political vacuum. A first election is held, if we ever get that far - but there has never been any other polictians than the overthrown regime so who are there to vote for? Radicals, of some sort is my guess. And where do we end up then? With a new terror regime, sooner or later.

TokyoNiGHTS · 01-11-2005, 08:39 AM

Hey I agree.

I think Bush's and alot of other peoples problems with this is not understanding that there are alot of people over in the Middle East that enjoy the way they're living. They don't want it to change. Whether we can understand why they like it isn't their problem. But we can't be just gonig over and bombing the crap out of people just because we don't like they way they're living. That's exactly the reason why 9/11 happened. Al Queda doesn't like the way we're living.

UnsilentMajorty · 01-11-2005, 09:48 AM

Annuscka

Very good post.

This, in a nutshell, is what a lot of these pro-war people need to get through their thick skulls. But then again, most of the pro-war people -- Those who think the U.S. should rule the world at any cost to keep America safe -- Usually aren't very experienced, or knowledgeable about things outside the U.S. and haven't even met and or talked with people from other countries as well and rely soley on movies and biased TV media to paint them a picture of how these other countries are and what those people supposedly "want".

A perfect example is a person I used to work with.

He's the typical, White male, urban professional in his thirites. He thinks that everyone, no matter where, should have a car. I asked what about natives in the jungles of like South America who don't even know what a car is and don't have need for one? He said it doesn't matter. Everyone on the planet should have one.

I don't understand where this mentlaity of entitlement in this country (U.S.) comes from and where this arrogant -- and it IS arrogant -- pressumption that unless everyone else in the world lives like we do that they are somehow unhappy and worst of all inferior to us.

Like I said in another post and you commented on here, you can't force freedom on a people. Any people. Especially, as you said, a people who've never had freedom before in their lifetime, or the generations before them. Just like with the former Soviet Republic. They got their first taste of capitalism, I.E. gangsters, prostitution, etc. and now a lot of them want to go back to the old regiemes because at least under socialism, people had jobs and mob bosses didn't run the country.

- annuscka - · 01-11-2005, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnsilentMajorty

Annuscka

Very good post.

This, in a nutshell, is what a lot of these pro-war people need to get through their thick skulls. But then again, most of the pro-war people -- Those who think the U.S. should rule the world at any cost to keep America safe -- Usually aren't very experienced, or knowledgeable about things outside the U.S. and haven't even met and or talked with people from other countries as well and rely soley on movies and biased TV media to paint them a picture of how these other countries are and what those people supposedly "want".

A perfect example is a person I used to work with.

He's the typical, White male, urban professional in his thirites. He thinks that everyone, no matter where, should have a car. I asked what about natives in the jungles of like South America who don't even know what a car is and don't have need for one? He said it doesn't matter. Everyone on the planet should have one.

I don't understand where this mentlaity of entitlement in this country (U.S.) comes from and where this arrogant -- and it IS arrogant -- pressumption that unless everyone else in the world lives like we do that they are somehow unhappy and worst of all inferior to us.

Like I said in another post and you commented on here, you can't force freedom on a people. Any people. Especially, as you said, a people who've never had freedom before in their lifetime, or the generations before them. Just like with the former Soviet Republic. They got their first taste of capitalism, I.E. gangsters, prostitution, etc. and now a lot of them want to go back to the old regiemes because at least under socialism, people had jobs and mob bosses didn't run the country.

Thanks

And ack, you're right too. And it surely is arrogance, but it's not just the US even if it maybe is leading the leage - most rich countries in Europe are just as stuck up. You shoul see (or, I guess you already know since you seem pretty well-informed) - how the former USSR states and Poland and such are treated. And still it was Europe and the US during the beginning of the Cold War that created the whole damn situation... with help from Stalin obviously, but they went right into his traps then and Bush is doing it now with Bin Laden and the rest of the terrorists.

Anyway, re this topic - it sounds ludicrous to me to hire potential terrorists to do away with terrorists.

And they're going into SYRIA too? What the hell did they do?! That you can prove. Why not take Jordan while you're at it, huh?

WalkingOnSunshine · 01-12-2005, 09:45 AM

Quote:

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.

Sounds like a start to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TokyoNiGHTS

You aren't going to get rid of terrorist, they'll keep coming and coming.

Perhaps, but trying to stop them is a step in the right direction I think. I am not saying the US & the coalition are going to "save the world" or anything of the like. However, they are trying to curb terrorism and get to its root. And even, if it is not as successful as we hope - it is a start. Then again though maybe I am just one of those "naive and arrogant pro-war people".


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > Possible U.S. Supported 'Death Squads' In Iraq Allegedly Being Discussed