'Liberating' Iraq with death squads: The Salvador Option

PsychoSword

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

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

AP
Nuns pray over the bodies of four American sisters killed by the military in El Salvador in 1980
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Hirsh and John Barry
Newsweek
Updated: 5:33 p.m. ET Jan. 8, 2005Jan. 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.


Yes the disarmed, bombed out, retina scanned, frightened, starving people of Fallujah is just want is wanted. All part of the plan. Perfect slaves. This is their new "freedom". And remember torture is good! This suspected terrorist must be tortured. But Saddam's bad, because he tortures!

And remember if you support the soldiers by wanting to give them treatment for sickness or wanting them to have proper equipment or not wanting them to go on suicide missions then you're against the soldiers. Gotta love all the doublethink floating around out there.

So what if a few civilians are killed. Billions in oil is at stake. (not really, they've got the whole thing planned out). It's gonna be a controlled conflict to make money with weapons sales and other contracts for as long as the American people will put up with it. Then when public support finally falls to dangerous levels, we'll pull out. Then there'll probably be another terrorist attack....
 
Since the USof A is such a horrible place, why not emigrate to the Glorious Peoples Republic of North Korea. Renounce citizenship on departure please.

Geoff
Who has seen the propaganda.
 
I agree

All you people who love to bash the U.S., well if it is such a bad place . see you later. get out. go some place that has beliefs more like yourself. I am still waiting for Alec Baldwin to leave, maybe you could take him with you.
 
Yes the disarmed, bombed out, retina scanned, frightened, starving people of Fallujah is just want is wanted. All part of the plan. Perfect slaves. This is their new "freedom". And remember torture is good! This suspected terrorist must be tortured. But Saddam's bad, because he tortures!

Yep, Damn those evil Americans! Trying to bring democracy and freedom to a people who have lived under one of the most murderous tyrants in history. The Iraqis were better off under Saddam!

Not.

My only problem with this new "Phoenix program" is that it's being discussed openly, and it doesn't involve hit squads targeted against the Iranian government.
 
Last edited:
To Whom The Shoe May Fit:
It is a sign of intelligence to keep our own counsel when all we have to contribute is testosterone induced vent. One may do otherwise, but only at the expense of your own reputation among these Forumites.

In translation- If this topic cannot be discussed rationally, intelligently and with some modicum of civility for all parties concerned, I'm gonna flush the entire thread quicker than a toilet.

OK?
Thanks-
Rich
 
The problem with the concept is that we invariably end up financing and training local factions to better fight out their centuries-old grudges against each other. Witness the ethnic tribes in Afghanistan, who at turns recruited American forces in engaging their rivals...all it took was the assertion that those guys were Taliban or Al-Qaeda. Give them American arms and training, and vest them with local authority, and many of them will pad their own body count (and justify the continued flow of money) by offing their local rivals instead of the real insurgents.

It happened in Vietnam and Central America, and it would happen in Iraq as well. Generally, getting the locals to do the dirty work never yields the expected payoff, and may just finance strife and injustice that will sour that part of the wolrd on American involvement for good, even among those who until then supported our intervention.

And make no mistake, no country can run another country without at least some support from the locals. The Iraqis need to stand on their own two feet and get rid of the insurgents themselves, without American dollars or weapons as an incentive. If they're not willing, there's just no way we'll have the manpower or money to keep the place pacified by force forever.
 
Typical responses from "quick draw artists"...

That's precisely what this entire web site does NOT support, that is, the knee-jerk reaction from the "Love it or leave it crowd".
They seem to leave out the possibility that anyone who criticises whatever party is in power this week might be a responsible, independent-thinking citizen.
If I dislike some of what my government is doing, it does not mean I want to leave, but that I want to work to correct the error.
Why does that lead to you guys asking me to leave?
And - of course - I am going nowhere but right here..... MY country too, bud!
Try engaging in a real discourse and convincing me where you are right and I am wrong.
 
Unfortunately, it takes at least two parties to engage in 'real discourse'. It becomes difficlt, to say the least, to remain congenial when some members post their ranting, conspricy laden, anti - American rhetoric and then cry foul when it raises the ire of other members. I think its called trolling...anyway, if ya' don't wanna get wet, don't call down the rain.

Re. the story in question...its past time that we should have been engaged in this type of operation. The enemy is unrestrained in their operations against us. We should actively consider the use of EVERY option at our disposal and be unapologetic about it. This is war, not a popularity contest and those of you who think that we're only there to snatch the oil should neither be surprised nor upset that we're considering this. Hunting the enemy down and killing them is the fundamental nature of war. I see very little difference between doing this on the battallion level or one on one.
 
Guys-
Does any of us believe that the specops community doesn't have a list of "Targets of Opportunity" that they've been working since day one?

That's why it's called "warfare" and not "cops and robbers".

"Death Squads" indeed.
Rich
 
The real question....

"....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.) "

I have no problem with special ops by our forces in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I do have a problem with mercenaries, secret support and funding for indigenous outlaws or groups without any pedigree whatsoever to be turned loose to kill anyone they wish. That is called anarchy..... or civil war. If our cause - or those we support - is just, it will stand the light of day, a formal command structure and the rigors of accountability. If not, then maybe we shouldn't be supporting it?
Without this kind of structure, we become no better than the enemy we fight.
 
...indigenous outlaws or groups without any pedigree whatsoever...
By that, you refer to the Military and Police of a (soon to be elected) sovereign nation? Exactly what kind of "pedigree" is required to become a soldier at war?

Interesting. If we shouldn't be training our war allies to to kill our mutual enemies, what should we be teaching them? Basket weaving? Now, don't get me wrong....the Federal Machine and the Bureaucrat Spooks will certainly screw this one up also: eg: back the wrong group, overextend it's mission assignment and/or overlook proper Rules of Engagement. That's what the Machine does.

But that's not the outcry on this thread. The hand-wringing is over the very discussion of alternative (and acceptable) practices in a war in which The Enemy sets the Rules; a battlefield which is more fluid than an oil slick in the North Sea. Kill or capture the insurgent leaders....I thought that was the whole point of the exercise. Where's the beef?
Rich
 
Death squads vs. legitimate authority

In El Salvador, the death squads rapidly degenerated into state-sponsored terrorists lacking any controls.
We were discussing the issue of the Salvadorian model, hence my comments. It remains to be seen if there will emerge from the Iraqi elections anything approximating a legitimate authority.
 
jm-
You make my point. The skills we taught were used to oppress. Had they been used properly, we'd say "all is fair in love and war". The teaching is not to blame....only the mis-application of the skills (and possible "encouragement" by the handlers).

Your argument is tantamount to "Power Corrupts".

So where's that leave us? Don't provide training and tools to our allies because they may be misused?
Well, we're all familiar with that argument. Schumer, Kennedy. Feinstein and others use it daily in their quest to deny you the tools to fight your next battle.

See where I'm going here? I'm not saying "Death Squads" are a good thing. I'm not even saying that we can trust Governments (I don't). However, in absence of a better solution from you for the killing of enemy combatants, hiding in urban terrain, wearing civilian clothes----I'd have to argue that we give our Allies the tools they need; act as responsibly as possible; hold them to that same standard; and recognize that, in the End, no-one escapes judgement and sentence.
Rich
 
Here's where we diverge....

I can agree with a lot of what you say, but to assert that the end of January will bring us an "ally" of any sort in Iraq is the same sort of denial that the Bu$h administration uses when it derides the "reality-based community".....
You can apply all the good logic you wish to a false assertion and you come up with the same thing..... a false assertion......
The situation in Iraq is not resolvable with the current cast of characters.....
 
to assert that the end of January will bring us an "ally" of any sort in Iraq is the same sort of denial that the Bu$h administration uses when it derides the "reality-based community"
jailmedic-
On that note, you just won the argument...as least from where I stand.
Seriously.
Rich
 
"Love it or Leave it" - often the reason I criticize is because I love something. I love something and want to see it better. The US in general is good, or at least tries to do good. We do make mistakes and we can be better.
Everything has faults. To shout down others because they point out fault, real or not, never addresses the real issue. At worst it obscures the truth and promotes a false image of perfection. It certainly prevents things from being fixed.
This happened to the Roman Catholic Church over the centuries. This is why organizations, even countries, started with the best intentions become stagnant and even corrupt.
Critical self examination is a healthy thing. It keeps us from forming unhealthy false images and confidence. It shows us what we need to do to correct our faults.
It is never sufficent to yell "We are the best". We should also strive to be the best, morally and ethically. Otherwise we are just a bunch of overbearing frat boys with a large military.
 
The "SpecOp community" might well have more than a few targets lined up - I am sure they do. But based on what and whose information? In a country that has so many rival factions - how is anything from Iraqi or other local sources to be trusted enough to go around snuffing people out?
 
My, the accusations do fly around threads like this, whether it be the love it or leave it crowd, or the ones who continue the same old tired "its all about the oil" gang. Truth be known, if it was all about the oil, we would have secured the oil fields, knocked back the population from its vicinity, handed Haliburton the keys to a big, fat contract, pumped to our hearts content, and the people can just go spit.....

In the end, we have provided the people there with an opportunity to form a democracy-and what they do with it is going to take a lot of sorting out, just like it is with Bosnia and the Balkan states. One of the things which dictators do is to qwell factional fighting. Ever notice how much of that happened while Tito and Saddam were in power?

As we are in a free society, there is always going to be a lot of backbiting and bickering-its what we do. Respect for law, fairness, and order comes from the people, not from a piece of parchment, which so far, is the only thing the Iraqi people have.
Take a big bowl, toss in the old regime along with a number of persecuted tribes, and you have a ready made fight. The people formerly in power are going to fight us because they want that power back, and the persecuted ones still fear them. The US does not have a great track record for staying the course over long periods of time, so the trust is not there yet.

There have been many factions of the people there who have been suppressed for decades, and they are going to get it out of their system until the people decide enough is enough. What Reagan/Bush1/Clinton did or did not do no longer applies, except with respect for the trust of the Iraqi people. We can't change that overnight, and its not a one issue fight if you look at it even generally.

To accuse the US of not doing the right thing is premature at best. This is not Monday night football where its over in a couple of hours. Most of what we have done has been exactly right-I wouldn't trust the government for the correct time of day, but I certainly trust the people I know who have been there. All this talk about government officials wanting to do this or that evil thing is not present with the men and women who are there rebuilding utilities, hospitals and the like.

The object of the exercise is to have the people build a democracy, as well as a place where terrorism cannot function. In the meantime, there is going to be blood shed as one group or another settles old standing fights. Regrettable as it may be, there is not much we can do to stop that part. The most we can do is provide the locals with the ability to form a representative government-we cannot force it. In the end, its theirs to use or lose.

All this is easy to say, being born and raised in a democratic republic. The concept of choices is going to be much more difficult for those who have never had it. The founding fathers of this country did not just wake up one morning and decide to leave the crown. By our distance from the King in those days, we had to make decisions on our own, and eventually decided that we could do a better job than someone on a throne several thousand mile away. After all, we were living it and the boss had never even set foot here!
 
Thread lost....can it be regained?

The focus has been lost here.....
The original post posited that perhaps the answer to the "insurgency" (read "tribal war") was to employ "death squads" as was done in El Salvador during the reign of King Ronnie the First.
That was a wonderful post, but it did not do anything but add more scattergun pellets to an already shot-to-hell target......
 
Back
Top