Pentagon considers Death Squads in Iraq

[dr. what]

I was a little skeptical about the details of this story (the usual 'unnamed sources' are cited) but it's starting to crop up on a bunch of other news-sites as well:

link

‘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: 10:22 a.m. ET Jan. 9, 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 no 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

[Illuminatus Primus]

If they ID the guys right, this is great. One has to remember that right now we're being idiots and attempting to do the same thing with 500 lb. JDAMs. Needless to say I think one-man apprehension is more appropriately addressed by death or apprehension squads.

[Patrick Degan]

Ah, so we've decided to give the Iraqis the Salvadoran-model democracy instead.

[Howedar]

I don't see an inherit problem with this were the targets kept to known insurgents. I worry that the target base will spread though.

[The Kernel]

I don't see an inherit problem with this were the targets kept to known insurgents. I worry that the target base will spread though.

Yeah, because we all know how well giving squads of thugs to power of judge, jury and executioner has worked in the past now don't we?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Who was bitching when we bombed insurgent safehouses? Now because we're doing it more personally - greatly removing the probability we accidentally bomb some innocent person's home.

[Howedar]

I don't see an inherit problem with this were the targets kept to known insurgents. I worry that the target base will spread though.

Yeah, because we all know how well giving squads of thugs to power of judge, jury and executioner has worked in the past now don't we?

It's a war, douchebag. If you find an enemy, you kill him. Mind you, I think the "death squads" should be killing all the guys on the way in and out, too.

As for giving these "death squads" the power of judge and jury, we're not. That power would lie with whomever selected the targets for the "death squads".

[The Kernel]

It's a war, douchebag. If you find an enemy, you kill him. Mind you, I think the "death squads" should be killing all the guys on the way in and out, too.

Then you're a bloodthirsty fucking idiot.

As for giving these "death squads" the power of judge and jury, we're not. That power would lie with whomever selected the targets for the "death squads".

SUUUUUURE we aren't...

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.

Gee, were going to be comprising these death squads of people who make up their most hated enemies, Kurds and Shiites. How exactly to you propose to prevent them from killing anyone they choose? You think the Sunnis they oppress and murder are going to file a complaint?

[The Kernel]

Who was bitching when we bombed insurgent safehouses? Now because we're doing it more personally - greatly removing the probability we accidentally bomb some innocent person's home.

With still absolutely no safeguards against innocents getting killed. You think the Kurdish and Shiite "death squads" are going to care about proof beyond a reasonable doubt before shooting someone?

[Faram]

Sure hope this is not a sign of times to come.

But American death squads leaves a bad taste, and if you think this is ok you have lost all moral high ground against terrorists.

[Howedar]

It's a war, douchebag. If you find an enemy, you kill him. Mind you, I think the "death squads" should be killing all the guys on the way in and out, too.

Then you're a bloodthirsty fucking idiot.

Wanting to kill the enemy in a war makes me a "bloodthirsty fucking idiot"? What the fuck planet are you from? Do you want us to shoot flowers at them?

SUUUUUURE we aren't...

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.

Gee, were going to be comprising these death squads of people who make up their most hated enemies, Kurds and Shiites. How exactly to you propose to prevent them from killing anyone they choose? You think the Sunnis they oppress and murder are going to file a complaint?

This is different from the normal Iraqi army... how? It's not as if the US military knows exactly what each Iraqi soldier is doing all the time. Fuck, we can't even get them to reliably show up for work!

[Illuminatus Primus]

Look, stupid, its a guerilla war. Do you think ANY guerilla war could be fought apprehending fighters and leaders and holding them to an American trial-by-jury standard of proof?

Like I said, no one thinks its unreasonable when we pound these people's positions with 155 mm howitzer fire or 500 lb JDAMs - both of which have caused horrific collateral damage - including you. But suddenly if we send a squad of 1st SFOD-D its horrors.

[Illuminatus Primus]

And its quite simple, after the op you do BDA and if they kill loads of civilians, you disband the squad because they're an enormous political problem. I sincerely doubt they're going to gleefully hire mass murderers to indescriminantly do it again and again while twirling their mustaches.

[Sea Skimmer]

With still absolutely no safeguards against innocents getting killed.

It's a fucking WAR. The innocent are dieing enmass every single day.

You think the Kurdish and Shiite "death squads" are going to care about proof beyond a reasonable doubt before shooting someone?

This is a war, not a courtroom. Can you that concept? Can you understand that war isn't clean and sterile, and the fact that trying to make it that way is quite insane?

[The Kernel]

Wanting to kill the enemy in a war makes me a "bloodthirsty fucking idiot"? What the fuck planet are you from? Do you want us to shoot flowers at them?

If you want to kill an insurgent that is firing an AK-47 at state authorities that is one thing. Sending in a group of bloodthirsty thugs with old grudges to do indiscriminate killing and create an aura of fear is not fighting a war against an enemy. The fact that you do not see the distinction is highly disturbing.

SUUUUUURE we aren't...

This is different from the normal Iraqi army... how? It's not as if the US military knows exactly what each Iraqi soldier is doing all the time. Fuck, we can't even get them to reliably show up for work!

The normal Iraqi army is not solely comprised of hated enemies of the group they are trying to intimidate. Or didn't you wonder WHY they specifically mentioned that they would be using Shiites and Kurds for these units? You think this is a fucking coincidence?

[Sea Skimmer]

Sure hope this is not a sign of times to come.

But American death squads leaves a bad taste, and if you think this is ok you have lost all moral high ground against terrorists.

I'd really like to hear you explain how we lose the moral high ground by being as selective as is possibul in warfare in killing our enemies.

[The Kernel]

Look, stupid, its a guerilla war. Do you think ANY guerilla war could be fought apprehending fighters and leaders and holding them to an American trial-by-jury standard of proof?

I suppose you think the alternative of massed killings and rule by fear is preferable?

Like I said, no one thinks its unreasonable when we pound these people's positions with 155 mm howitzer fire or 500 lb JDAMs - both of which have caused horrific collateral damage - including you. But suddenly if we send a squad of 1st SFOD-D its horrors.

Wroing asshole, I complained about this on several occassions only to be told by the right wingers on the board the collateral damage is acceptable in a war.

[The Kernel]

It's a fucking WAR. The innocent are dieing enmass every single day.

Which justifies this how?

This is a war, not a courtroom. Can you that concept? Can you understand that war isn't clean and sterile, and the fact that trying to make it that way is quite insane?

There is a distinct difference between a non-combatant getting caught in an explosion meant for a rebel and forming squads specifically designed to kill indiscriminately.

[Faram]

I'd really like to hear you explain how we lose the moral high ground by being as selective as is possibul in warfare in killing our enemies.

Perhaps you have not heard about Einsatzgruppen during the second world war?

That is what I assosiate with death squads.

And Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibit executions without a fair trial.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Look at the idiot dance around hysterics by implying that every hit squad has to be straight out of the Contras or Nazi Germany while the article itself admits its not clear if these are "snatch" ops or assassinations.

One officer (unnamed of course) stating that the Sunnis should be more afraid does not mean it will happen or that that is part of the plan. Again, would you prefer we bomb the insurgent safehouses like we have been doing? Trust me, any spray and pray fire from a hit squad is going to kill shitloads less people than accidental bombing that you never bitched about.

And assassinations are not executions. I suppose you'd wax poetic if they knocked off Zarqawi?

[Gunhead]

Collateral damage is not acceptable. The fact that it happens can be acceptable to some, but that's different. There are no magic bullets, and every solution creates a new set of problems.
For example: You kill a prominent rebel who you know is behind terrorist attacks, but at the same time is revered as hero by people. They're not going to give a fuck how much you tell them that he was a bad guy, they are still going to blame the americans for everything that's fucked up in the world. At worst it rallies more support for the rebel cause. So assasination would be an extreme measure and targeted at the top.

-Gunhead

[Illuminatus Primus]

Wroing asshole, I complained about this on several occassions only to be told by the right wingers on the board the collateral damage is acceptable in a war.

So shithead, what is your solution for the hundreds of insurgents?

[The Kernel]

Look at the idiot dance around hysterics by implying that every hit squad has to be straight out of the Contras or Nazi Germany while the article itself admits its not clear if these are "snatch" ops or assassinations.

Perhaps you could name a benign "death squad" historically that was made up of religious/racial enemies?

One officer (unnamed of course) stating that the Sunnis should be more afraid does not mean it will happen or that that is part of the plan. Again, would you prefer we bomb the insurgent safehouses like we have been doing? Trust me, any spray and pray fire from a hit squad is going to kill shitloads less people than accidental bombing that you never bitched about.

Black/White fallacy. Carpet bombing and death squads are not the only two options availible to us.

And assassinations are not executions. I suppose you'd wax poetic if they knocked off Zarqawi?

Yes, I have no doubt that these squads are being formed specifically for the purpose of knocking off a single man.

[The Kernel]

So shithead, what is your solution for the hundreds of insurgents?

Simple, we leave.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Perhaps you could name a benign "death squad" historically that was made up of religious/racial enemies?

I'd still love to see how any death squad could be as grossly destructive as a 500 lb. bomb.

Black/White fallacy. Carpet bombing and death squads are not the only two options availible to us.

We're not going to leave. Most of us recognize that this would be a terrible thing for both us and the Iraqi people. Sure we didn't want to be there, but you choose the best of evils.

Yes, I have no doubt that these squads are being formed specifically for the purpose of knocking off a single man.

No, but he implied that across the board, regardless, assassinations were wrong. This article doesn't even admit to knowing if they are going to commit snatches or assassinations, despite your goofy delusional hysterics.