PDA

View Full Version : Is putting Saddam's generals in charge of anything in Iraq REALLY a good an idea?


Volcana
May 2nd, 2004, 03:48 AM
I know Fallujah had turned into a disaster for the American military. Well, not a disaster. A problem they were not equipped to solve. I used to train under a guy (Not in that sense, his wife was my friend) who was a ranger. He used to say "if it can be solved by money, effort, or negotiation, it's not a problem. It's a situation."

Fallujah was a problem.

If, in retaking the city, there's massive loss of civilian life, the Occupation loses.
If the Occupation forces retreat in the face of the Resistance, the Occupation loses.
If the Occupation forces sit there surrounding the city, the Occupation loses.
Worse, they look impotent.

But putting people who were among the chief beneficiaries of Saddam Hussein's reign of tortue and murder in charge of the situation?!?!? How the hell can that help? Anything wrong they do, and they WILL do wrong, the Occupation will get the blame for anyway.

We've invaded a country that was in no way a threat to us. Destroyed the forces that kept it from fragmenting. We're lining the pockets of American companies with Iraqi natural resources. We're humiliating the women. In at least one reported case we're raping the men, and we're still paying lip service to the idea that we're trying to 'win the hearts and minds' of the Iraqi people.

By putting Saddam Hussein's henchmen in power.

These aren't schoolteachers who joined the Baathists because it was the only way to get a job. These are some of the guys that ran the military that oppressed and tortued the poeple. In 1993, we encouraged the Shiites to rise up against Saddam Hussein, then left them to be slaughtered by him. Is 2003-2004 a repeat? It culd look that way to an Iraqi mind. Once more, the USA comes with all it's military might. Defeats the Iraqi army. Sings the praises of freedom. And look who's back in charge.

I know it's only one city, but the symbolism is hard to miss.

This is not a solution. I question whether or not it's even sane.

Colin B
May 2nd, 2004, 11:17 AM
Good post Volcana!

When I read about this, my first reaction was that it was a good idea. Military types can often be persuaded to change sides when someone new takes over power.
Lets show the Iraqi people that we are serious about eventually handing over power to them, by exercising a little trust in them; they will know who they are dealing with far better than we do and (an added bonus) it'll be their guys who get killed rather than ours, when the bullets start to fly.

BUT

I keep seeing that battle scene from Mel Gibson's Braveheart. The one where the English send the Irish into battle against (fellow Celts) the Scots. That priceless look on the faces of the English commanders as the Irish lower their weapons and join forces with the Scots to give the English a famous arse kicking.

Hmmmmmmm, could be interesting.

:)

flyingmachine
May 2nd, 2004, 11:40 AM
BUT

I keep seeing that battle scene from Mel Gibson's Braveheart. The one where the English send the Irish into battle against (fellow Celts) the Scots. That priceless look on the faces of the English commanders as the Irish lower their weapons and join forces with the Scots to give the English a famous arse kicking.

Hmmmmmmm, could be interesting.

:)

Can history bites it's head again? ;) Well as far as I know Iraq becomes a "BLACK HOLE" of the middle east.

*JR*
May 2nd, 2004, 12:14 PM
Old Middle Eastern proverb: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Old foreign policy trick: (somewhat) equalize the power of factions hostile to eachother as well as 2U. So while the US allied with Saddam in his war vs. Ayatollah Khomeini in the '80's, we ALSO had Ollie North coordinating transhipment of arms to Iran.

Colin B
May 2nd, 2004, 12:48 PM
Old Middle Eastern proverb: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Or, to use an English proverb: Keep your friends close; your enemies closer.;)

Old foreign policy trick: (somewhat) equalize the power of factions hostile to eachother as well as 2U. So while the US allied with Saddam in his war vs. Ayatollah Khomeini in the '80's, we ALSO had Ollie North coordinating transhipment of arms to Iran.
And it's because of 'far sighted' (not) foreign policy like that, that we find ourselves in this shit in the first place! :lol:


:D

ys
May 2nd, 2004, 05:16 PM
I think it is a good idea. USA made a mistake by taking out Sadddam. Now they realised that to prevent this extremely important country from falling into Al Qaeda hands they need a local non-fundamentalist strongman, like Saddam was. Makes sense to me. The original approach of completely taking out Saddam's political elite was merely an idealistic mistake. There is no other political elite in that country.

*JR*
May 2nd, 2004, 06:30 PM
I think it is a good idea. USA made a mistake by taking out Sadddam. Now they realised that to prevent this extremely important country from falling into Al Qaeda hands they need a local non-fundamentalist strongman, like Saddam was. Makes sense to me. The original approach of completely taking out Saddam's political elite was merely an idealistic mistake. There is no other political elite in that country.
There are strongmen like (using 2 contrasting African examples) Jerry Rawlings of Ghana and the late (Joseph Mobutu was his real name) of (then Zaire, now Dem. Rep. of the Congo). The Rawlings Regime had some repression, Mobutu's survived only because of (Much More). While I did oppose this war, Saddam was closer to being a Mobutu than a Rawlings, meaning a corrupt, brutal dictator.

Rawlings yielded power after his party lost a free election; under Mobutu that idea would have been a complete joke. And Mobutu was eventually ovathrown by the (since assasinated) Laurent Kabila, so "useful despots" may indeed breed instability (as the Shah did In Iran years earlier, of course). So besides ethical concerns, dictators are often a Bad Bet as well.

Martian Willow
May 2nd, 2004, 07:18 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3678621.stm

:)

emptyhead
May 2nd, 2004, 07:20 PM
Put Michael Jackson in charge!

Volcana
May 2nd, 2004, 08:55 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3678621.stm

:)A source somewhat closer to the action.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/59D0FB50-77CE-4EF8-BCD2-C65D9D6851E0.htm

Still thanks for the article supporting my point. It's all fine to say General Jasim Saleh won't be heading peacekeeping. But he's already heading the first division of 200 peacekeepers in this new bragade. He's ALREADY THERE, heading peacekeeping. Cause right now, that one division is all the Iraqi troops we've sent in. At the very least, whoever IS in charge is going to be somebody who can work with him.

I might add, after the latest news of Americans torturing Iraqis, it's hard to be confident that the vetting process is going to weed out generlas who's troops tortured people. They're being vetted by generals who's troops tortured people.

If it's not Jasim Salih, it will be some other Iraqi general. More to the point, ANY high ranking Iraqi military officer a) was a Baathist, and b) had to at least verbally condone the tortue and murder that the regime carried on. Otherwise, they wouldn't BE high ranking military offciers.

Notice, by the way, in the BBC article, that at no point did General Myers SAY Jasim Salih would not be headed the Fallujah Brigade. He said

"There are a couple of people they're looking at, he [Gen Saleh] has been one of them. They have to be vetted in Baghdad by the coalition provisional authority and by the Iraqi Minister of Defence. My guess is, it will not be General Saleh... he will not be their leader."And
"The reporting on this has been very, very bad and way ahead of the facts."Not, "it's not true." Just, "it's not officially true YET." And of course, he said this on Fox News, a Bush administration mouthpiece he knew wouldn't challenge him.

This may be the best thing to do in a bd situation. But you have to fuck up BIG time to get to the point where THIS is the you can do. Or just have VERY bad judgement. Put two and two together.

Putting the torturers back in charge is considered, by the Bush administration, superior to giving the UN political control, or asking Congress for enough oney to deploy another hundred thousand troops. (And yes, we CAN get those troops from other countries, if we pay enough for them. We're paying everybody but the Brits, one way or another.)

Black Mamba.
May 2nd, 2004, 09:01 PM
I don't care what they have to do, I just want our troops to come home. They bravely served their country and it's time to bring them home. The US military is the best in the world at winning wars, but we just don't have the forces to do the peacekeeping stuff. What I hope is that some other countries will join in so some of our troops can finally come home.

flyingmachine
May 2nd, 2004, 09:22 PM
Put Michael Jackson in charge!
:haha: Good idea :lol:

Volcana
May 2nd, 2004, 09:34 PM
I don't care what they have to do, I just want our troops to come home. They bravely served their country and it's time to bring them home.
If somebody breaks into your house and wrecks the place, knowing that there is a large criminal element in your neighborhood, aren't they obligated to both protect you, and rebuild your home? At THEIR expense? That's how international law handle wars. When we invaded Iraq, we took on the responsibility for feeding, hoiusing and protecting the civilian population. At our expense.

We CAN'T just bring them home. Anymore than the person whowrecked your house could unilaterally declare he was no longer responsible for rebuilding it, or protecting you.

Black Mamba.
May 2nd, 2004, 11:01 PM
If somebody breaks into your house and wrecks the place, knowing that there is a large criminal element in your neighborhood, aren't they obligated to both protect you, and rebuild your home? At THEIR expense? That's how international law handle wars. When we invaded Iraq, we took on the responsibility for feeding, hoiusing and protecting the civilian population. At our expense.

We CAN'T just bring them home. Anymore than the person whowrecked your house could unilaterally declare he was no longer responsible for rebuilding it, or protecting you.


This may be true, but I for one am sick of seeing both Iraqis and our troops die everyday.