Train and Equip What, Exactly?

by Cliopatria

Buried in thisWashington Post story on the possible manipulation of the death toll from the frequent execution-style killings (groups of men with hands bound and either gunshots to the back of the head or strangulation bruising on the throat) in Iraq is this very interesting observation, with emphasis added:

"The widely differing tolls reflect acute political sensitivity at a time when Iraq's three-year-old conflict is undergoing a fundamental shift: Execution-style killings of the kind frequently blamed on police or Shiite militias allied with the government appear to be killing more Iraqis than bombings of government and civilian targets by Sunni Arab insurgents."

This on the same day that news stories are describing the kiddnapping of fifty private security employees by unidentified men wearing the uniforms -- possible stolen, possibly not -- of the Shiite-controlled Interior Ministry police.

The stated policy of the U.S. government in Iraq is to train and equip Iraqis to fight for themselves, preparing soldiers and police for independent counterinsurgency efforts:"As they stand up, we'll stand down." This effort has looked to me, and to others, like the U.S. effort to stand up a South Vietnamese army that could resist incorporation into North Vietnam.

But the frequency with which the bound bodies of Sunni men are turning up with torture and execution-style wounds, and the frequency with which Sunni men are being kidnapped or"arrested" (never to be seen again) by Shiites in government uniforms, suggest another possibility: It seems to me that we may be training and equipping not a new ARVN, but rather a new Interhamwe.

And what then?

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Barry DeCicco - 3/13/2006

Chris, it's probably not that mis-calculated. Some of the classic solutions to guerrilla warfare are terrorism, mass murder and ethnic cleansing. As a by-product, this would probably result in one of those 'our bastard' governments that right-wingers in the US find so congenial - troops who've committed multiple mass murders of Sunni terrorists/enemies of the state will have little problem killing Shiite traitors/enemies of the administration.

Back in 2003, I assumed that the Bush administration was in contact with some of Saddam's generals; that we'd soon see some 'Butcher of ________' repainted as a Good Guy. Nothing about the war made sense otherwise. The only surprise is that it took them almost three years to settle into SOP.

Barry DeCicco - 3/13/2006

Oscar:

It's exactly what they did in South and Central America. Frequently by the same people. In effect, you're dismissing a political party's standard, repeated and successful operating method as 'they wouldn't do that, it would be counter-productive'.

Invading a country with no plans after the initial offensive except 'brush rice and flowers from uniforms, return home, cue setting sun, inspirational music' is also counterproductive.

Except that it wasn't; it's gotten the administration at least two elections. Cost to Iraqis: Bush doesn't care.

And keeping it under wraps wasn't hard, for two sets of reasons:

1) It's a dangerous country for reporters to operate in, and that's if they know enough of the local language to actually operate. Things are hard to sniff out until they are large. And between the Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated goverment, there's lots of room to conduct operations.

2) It wasn't kept under wraps; I've seen discussions of the 'Salvador Option' before. Google that phrase, and go to Juan Cole's website. Again, history repeats itself - reporters figured out what was going on with the Reagan administration's mass murder operations, but the newspapers were careful not to get too informative on the subject - national security, you know. IIRC, the 'Liberal' NY Times fired some reporters for excessive truth about the operations of US-trained troops in El Salvador.

Chris Bray - 3/9/2006

I remember reading about the Salvador option -- was it the NYT Magazine that profiled a former SF soldier who had experience in El Salvador, and then headed to Iraq as a contractor or something? -- but even if that was the (massively horrible) plan, it looks like someone miscalculated. It sure seems to me like we're headed for something a lot more serious. Which is saying something.

Jonathan Dresner - 3/9/2006

I was struck, in the Bush/Gandhi piece that Sepoy linked to a day or two ago at the fundamental level at which "means justifies the ends" operates in the administration worldview.

I'm not sure if it's technically hypocritical, if they'd do the same thing here but are restrained by law in a way that existing institutions of international law can't restrain them overseas. It's just differential opportunities.

Oscar Chamberlain - 3/9/2006

I can't say that all of you are wrong. However, this would be a remarkably counterproductive approach, whether the administration wanted democracy or even if it wanted a chaos that the Shi'a could not control.

I also wonder if they could have managed to keep such training under wraps for so long.

Adam Kotsko - 3/9/2006

Beat me to it.

In the eyes of our ruling class, human rights, etc., might (might) be good enough for Americans, but apparently for people in other countries, right-wing terrorists are required to beat them into submission.

Barry DeCicco - 3/9/2006

Chris, shortly after Negroponte was appointed ambassador to Iraq (or whatever they called him), there were a few articles talking about a 'Salvadore option' for new tactics.

Any non-ignorant person knows what that meant; it looks like it's full gear.