‘The Salvador Option’ (May put Special-Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq)

Newsweek ^ | Updated: 5:33 p.m. ET Jan. 8, 2005 | By Michael Hirsh and John Barry

[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.

[RKV]

I think the way we deal with the "blowback" is that these operations should be done by Iraqis - by a loyal intelligence service composed of Shia and Kurds. Is there danger in reconstituting such a capability? Yes, but it, in combination with strike forces from the Iraqi army are what will get the job done and done in a way which will not be poisonous for the country after the job is done. The area in south central Iraq (the Sunni Triangle) should be under martial law for as long as it takes to get the job done. My hope is that after elections this period will not be long.

[dennisw]

btttttt This means going nuclear on these savage killers. We make them into the sitting ducks. We'll need a great network of informants

[bozot]

"We'll need a great network of informants"

That would be a tricky one...

In a tribal environment ?
How do you get them?

Paying them ? the neighbours would become suspicious if one of them suddenly dress his children better or looks better fed than the rest... And they know what would happen to them and their family if the neighbours find it out...

Fear ? that means to make them fear more the US than the iraqi terrorists... that would mean beheadings and burning people alive... But we already seen what happens if some interrogations gets a bit tough...

[dennisw]

Israelis know how to cultivate informants in the Paleostinian areas. We should learn from them though it's a difficult process. Israelis have many Jews who came from Arab countries who can blend in with Arabs. They look like Arabs. Our situation is different.

[1234]

...I trust the American people are mentally tough enough to understand the issues...

DUNNO 'bout that. But i do know we spend BIG BUCKS for clandestine operations-at a minimum we're diluting the bang we get for each buck w/this 'pussyfootin around' in the media-
are we losin our ability to do anything right? such as a simple matter of keeping a lid on national security deliberations?!

[wingsof liberty]

I am with you 100%. The Salvador "Option"? Why arnt we doing this already?? I bet I am not the only one who is frustrated by the fact our troops have a million rules of engagement to follow and the terrorists ONLY rule is engage, regardless of the cost. As long as we have to follow a ton of (sometimes necessary) rules and the terrorist dont were going to loose, or at the very least get a lot of brave coalition troops shot up. Also Syria & Iran have demonstrated countless times they have no interest in stemming the flow of insurgents from their countries, so its time for us to do it for them!