Posted on 01/09/2005 6:57:35 AM PST by Brian Mosely
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Or maybe it wasn't the subject matter. Maybe it was the way he worded it. Maybe he violated posting guidelines. I didn't get to read the zotted post, so I can not be sure, but that is usually what causes one to have a post deleted.
An idea who's time is come bump.
I read it. It didn't seem like much in itself to me. Not for one post in which he never had the chance to respond to one question or challenge about it. Oh well.
I'd strongly recommend the wording be changed to: "assassination AND kidnapping". These vipers should be thoroughly interrogated prior to departure. Hopefully we have mossad "interrogators" on board in Iraq to assist. They have extensive experience in getting islamofascist jihadists to sing like canaries.
Based on what I have seen here, you have to work to get Zotted. Had to be what he wrote on some other thread. I didn't agree with his concerns - but I see nothing wrong in bringing up the issues. We need to be very clear about why we are justified in what we are doing.
This "senior military officer" should be court-martialed post haste!
....."Maybe one small, good baby step start would be for our senior military officers to stop calling them "insurgents" and start calling them "fascist terrorists." "
I do not think that kind of woodoo would make much difference....
Maybe the contrary...
Call them anyway you want.
But you have to TREAT them what they are.
An army.
Well trained, disciplined, having better intelligence than us, determined, and having the upper hand in choosing the time, place and the method of their fight and having the support of about 20 percent of the population....
Maybe this is what I just wrote is total bullshit...
Anyway, if you make this as a startpoint, you can not go very wrong. But if you sending the solders against some "pockets of diehard Saddam supporter terrorists" then you will face some naughty suprise...
Underestimating the enemy is the fastest way to defeat...
Overestimating, on the other hand, minimise the losses...
Not clear to me why publically debating US policy is an outrage. If one of the presstitutes violated security and got our guys hurt or killed, that is another story. I trust the American people are mentally tough enough to understand the issues - particularly how others will use our best instincts against us if we let them.
AlibizuX was probably zotted because of his obvious sympathy to the islamofascist cause in Iraq and his subtle attempt to use "freerepublic" resources to plant seeds of doubt and undermine potential winning US strategies. I doubt the founders of FreeRepublic wish to have their website used as a forum for islamofascist queer propaganda.
I know in the Philippines Muslim leaders tend to disappear in white Ford vans never to be heard from again. I support this 100%.
Well, I suppose that the press will ask for an "embedded" reporter to accompany the "Death Squads" on their missions.
I concur with you completely.
I don't know what post you read, kimosabe, but nothing like you describe was in his post here.
EVERY WEEK, NEWSWEEK SPAMS ME with press releases about its new stories. I usually ignore them because by the time they're out they're already old news to blogosphereans. But this piece, with its combination of blatant bias and factual inaccuracy, seems so typical that it's worth a comment. Excerpt:
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.
Er, maybe because the Iran-Contra scandal had to do with overthrowing the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, rather than the guerrilla war in El Salvador? I mean, I know all those people look alike to the folks at Newsweek, but this is either inexcusable sloppiness, or simply a stretch to try to bring in more stuff that might make it look bad.
The whole piece is like that, and it's unfortunately typical. I don't know whether this sort of thing is a good idea or not -- I can see arguments both ways -- but this story goes out of its way, as usual, to get the digs in before getting around to mentioning the actual arguments.
I guess I should be glad, though: Usually it's all about Vietnam. At least this story is bringing things 20 years closer to the present.
Why have we not being doing this up to now??
I will preface this comment by saying that I wholeheartedly agree with this policy and hope that it is implemented thoughtfully, unapologetically and without reservations.
What we are talking about here is creating a 'counter-insurgency' operation along the lines of the Afghan Mujahedeen of the 80's. At the time our enemy was the Soviet Union who are now the russians, our 'friends'.
What happens after these counter-insurgents have completed their task, will they then be unemployed? Perhaps they will then occupy themselves with some political aims. Perhaps some of them will become reborn to the glories of the Jihaad after the insurgency and start attacking the great satan.
We will then be again faced with the charge that we trained the people who are attacking us. We have to learn from history here. If we are going to train counter-insurgents, then we better damn well make sure we account for the blowback.
Sounds like a plan to me.
1.Take the war to the enemy. No safe haven in Syria--not even for the Syrians who aid and abet.
2.Make it costly for the majority of Sunnis to support the terrorists by creating a security zone around the Sunni triangle where there would be limited travel rights to and from other parts of Iraq. Of course, this would mean limiting commercial traffic of all but basics through the cordon--and that would be slow because each vehicle would be inspected.
3. I'm sure we can come up with other ideas to make the Sunnis realize there is a cost involved with support for terror.
"3. I'm sure we can come up with other ideas to make the Sunnis realize there is a cost involved with support for terror."
The problem is they realised already just after Bremer dissolved the army and practically made pariah of most of the sunnies, because they were the backbone of the Baath party...
I think that what they need is rather an "option" to stop fighting...
Now, they have nothing to loose... they are already on the bottom of the reconstruction lists, they are unable to get jobs, and their houses are raided daily...
Only the stick without the carrot wont do much, just swell the ever groving sucide-bomber candidates groups...
It is hard to imagine that they would support an election what just comfirming their outcast status...
In a world where dignity and honor is often more important than life ( and these people were humiliated a great deal), you do not want to face 2-3 million potential sucide bombers...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.