Special Forces May Train Assassins In Iraq

[NATO AIR]

gotta deal with the insurgency one way or another...

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

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Hirsh and John Barry
Newsweek
Updated: 10:22 a.m. ET Jan. 9, 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 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

 

[Zhukov]

Sounds good to me.

 

[theim]

Nothing halts an insurgency like a good ole fashioned death squad.

 

[wolvie20m]

I agree time to take the fight to thier door step. Tired of watching them attack us with no retaliation.

 

[no1tovote4]

Works for me.

General Luck. Cool name too.

 

[Mr. P]

Comrade Katie Curic was all over this this a.m. She attempted to suggest that
it's an indication that the U.S. is losing in Iraq...That was rejected by the General
she was interviewing which himself is an NBC consultant...THE BITCH!

 

[Black_Power]

gotta deal with the insurgency one way or another...

Way to go, Hunt them down, blow them up and torture them, make sure these wankers no who they are messing with and will die for it. USA take no prisioners this should be to the death.

Just hope they let the Brits SAS join in they are really good at this sort of shit to.

 

[Mr. P]

Way to go, Hunt them down, blow them up .... USA take no prisioners this should be to the death.

Just hope they let the Brits SAS join in they are really good at this sort of shit to.

Exactly as it should be in this type of war. Ya don't and can't win by saying, Please and Thank you. I do hope the Brits join in too.

 

[Flying Duck]

I saw this whole article debumked by a special forces epxert today. The number of inaccuries and outright erroneous info in this report is staggering.

Statements like "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." are very telling.

Still-secret? Huh? But it's published in Newsweek?

 

[wolvie20m]

I saw this whole article debumked by a special forces epxert today. The number of inaccuries and outright erroneous info in this report is staggering.

Statements like "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." are very telling.

Still-secret? Huh? But it's published in Newsweek?

Good point..could be a media war to affect the insurgency. Psycoligical battle now.

 

[Johnney]

Nothing halts an insurgency like a good ole fashioned death squad.

my death squad can beat up your death squad!

 

[hylandrdet]

Sounds good to me.

One little problem... History. We once trained a potential MLB ace pitcher into leading a revolt against his country's government. I wonder if Fidel can STILL throw a 90 mph fastball?

Do you really know thy enemy? Answer that first before you start training your next enemy!

 

[Johnney]

One little problem... History. We once trained a potential MLB ace pitcher into leading a revolt against his country's government. I wonder if Fidel can STILL throw a 90 mph fastball?

Do you really know thy enemy? Answer that first before you start training your next enemy!

but its ral hard to see into the future. i feel its more a case of who do we want to confront in the future, not whose our friends right now

 

[Zhukov]

One little problem... History. We once trained a potential MLB ace pitcher into leading a revolt against his country's government. I wonder if Fidel can STILL throw a 90 mph fastball?

I doubt it. He's pretty old.

Do you really know thy enemy? Answer that first before you start training your next enemy!

Yes, I think we do, and I think that's why they want to train death squads. We knew the Soviets, and we armed the Mujahadeen, and now there is no more Soviet Union.

Now we have the off-shoots of the Mujahadeen, so we will train death squads to wipe them out, and then their will be no more effective terrorists in Iraq.

If this someday creates a new enemy, we will deal with that when we come to it.

 

[Gem]

I'm(gulp! )actually going to agree with hylandrdet on this one. Each time we have tried this tactic we have ended up with dangerous (and often, long-term) enemies...people WE trained who have become dangerous and deadly adversaries.

We gather MORE enemies because people see us killing the people we once allied with, or they see people who once allied with turning against us and starting to kill us (or try to)...such things make the US look weak and in the present war we are fighting, this can be a dangerous thing.

I understand completely that training assassins could be very useful NOW...however, I think that NOW is the time we need to say, "Hey, one of the reasons we are at war NOW is because we backed a guy we KNEW was a major a-hole back in the day...ignored a lot of his bad habits...and are now paying the price...this has happened to us QUITE A BIT in US history, perhaps its time to find a new way."

We conservatives talk a good game about needing to fix the mistakes of the past rather than ignoring them (i.e. removing Saddam rather than letting him remain), but we almost always finish that thought with...and learning from those mistakes so we don't make them again.

I fear that training an all new generation of killers who can turn around and become the military, terrorist, and anti-US leaders of the future, trained with all the best the US can provide is NOT learning from past mistakes...and rather than being doomed to repeat history we should be looking seriously for another option.

 

[Mr. P]

And interesting evaluation Gem...

Here's how I see it..."Your Damned if ya do and Damned if ya dont". (maybe)

Take Afghanistan for example...If we hadn't supported OBL in the effort to
prevent the USSR from taking the country and instead used U.S. troops,
what would that have meant to the world...A major direct clash between the two
superpowers. I'm sure you get my drift...There are times we simple can't step up
to the plate, but need a designated hitter.

 

[theim]

And what other option would there be? I'm looking at this ending one of two ways: violence or non-violence.

If we were dealing with anyone except the people who can't seem to drag themselves out of the 12th century, instead electing to blow apart infidels in the name of Allah, I would say the non-violence option deserves a shot. But how else to solve this non-violently? They themselves have said they do not want a free democratic government, as that would be un-Islamic. So giving them freedom is out, they will not accept infidel money to help their decayed society modernize, as modernization would also be presumably un-Islamic. And for thee strange specimens, their religion trumps both law, nationality, and common sense.

So that would leave some form of violence. We are already trying that and frankly it is not working that well. It could work well if we were to stop pussyfooting around precious icons of Islam. But we are too busy worrying about not harming some mosque or shrine to any damage to their infrastructure. However the Islamist insurgents have no such scruples. They see what we do not. That risking some holy site or another is worth ultimate victory. So direct US action could work if we were to really go for it, and actually kill the terrorists before giving a damn about "hearts and minds".

So we come to option 3, the tried and sorta true War by Proxy. Since we are too squeemish to do what has to be done, hire some strongmen to do it for us. It only hs that nasty little side effect of turning on us in the end. But I don't really see the best opion here.

 

[freeandfun1]

I'm(gulp! )actually going to agree with hylandrdet on this one. Each time we have tried this tactic we have ended up with dangerous (and often, long-term) enemies...people WE trained who have become dangerous and deadly adversaries.

We gather MORE enemies because people see us killing the people we once allied with, or they see people who once allied with turning against us and starting to kill us (or try to)...such things make the US look weak and in the present war we are fighting, this can be a dangerous thing.

I understand completely that training assassins could be very useful NOW...however, I think that NOW is the time we need to say, "Hey, one of the reasons we are at war NOW is because we backed a guy we KNEW was a major a-hole back in the day...ignored a lot of his bad habits...and are now paying the price...this has happened to us QUITE A BIT in US history, perhaps its time to find a new way."

We conservatives talk a good game about needing to fix the mistakes of the past rather than ignoring them (i.e. removing Saddam rather than letting him remain), but we almost always finish that thought with...and learning from those mistakes so we don't make them again.

I fear that training an all new generation of killers who can turn around and become the military, terrorist, and anti-US leaders of the future, trained with all the best the US can provide is NOT learning from past mistakes...and rather than being doomed to repeat history we should be looking seriously for another option.

I think there is a big difference here. In most of our failures, in the past we were training people to kill their own. This time, we are training people to defend their country against OUTSIDE aggressors. Even with OBL, if you look at the BIG picture, many more of the "freedom fighters" of Afganistan have supported us. Yes, OBL turned against us, but can you really name too many that have? Furthermore, we can't forget that sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend. We shoulda just killed OBL once we had finished using him.

We have trained lots of militaries all over the world without any problem, but we have trained a few where we have had problems. But you can't just use a couple of examples and say, "see what happens every time..." I would venture a guess we have trained many more that turned out good, than turned out bad.

 

[Mr. P]

.....
We have trained lots of militaries all over the world without any problem, but we have trained a few where we have had problems. But you can't just use a couple of examples and say, "see what happens every time..." I would venture a guess we have trained many more that turned out good, than turned out bad.

 

[Zhukov]

I fear that training an all new generation of killers who can turn around and become the military, terrorist, and anti-US leaders of the future, trained with all the best the US can provide is NOT learning from past mistakes....

There is that possibility, but understand the past mistake we made wasn't training the Mujahadeen to fight the Soviets. It was the right thing to do.

The past mistake was leaving the Mujahadeen to their own devices after the fact. That is the lesson to be learned: to not detach ourselves prematurely from a situation of our own creation, because of loss of interest or distraction, and assume we won't need to worry about it any longer.

If we are going to create these squads we must remain involved with them, in some fashion, for as long as they exist.