PDA

View Full Version : Macgregor's latest shot at the matrix: "Sheikhs For Sale"



Gian P Gentile
01-28-2008, 03:18 PM
Here is an oped by Doug Macgregor (http://snuffysmithsblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/sheikhs-for-sale-by-douglas-macgregor.html) that is currently running in "Defense News."


January 28, 2008

Sheikhs for Sale - U.S. Cash Diplomacy in Iraq Will Fail in the End

Of the many factors contributing to the reduction of U.S. casualties in Iraq, none has been more critical than the decision by the generals in Baghdad to pay more than 80,000 of Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgents a quarter of a billion dollars a year not to shoot at U.S. forces.

It's not the first time that a foreign army in the Middle East has bought off troublesome Arab sheikhs and their cohorts with cash. The British used gold to sedate tribal enemies from the Khyber Pass to the Nile delta while they extracted billions from their colonies. However, it is the first time in American history that buying off the enemy has been presented to the American people as evidence for progress in a war or good generalship.......

Cavguy
01-28-2008, 03:42 PM
It still doesn't change the fact that co-opting tribes is not, and was never, a long term solution or meant to be. It was meant to provide the temporary stability required to accomplish ANY forward movement - which was impossible with even the "surge" troop levels. If Iraq doesn't resolve its larger issues, the Awakening movements are meaningless and perhaps counterproductive. However, if we hadn't encouragedthe Awakening movements, Iraqi would likely be far deeper into a civil war now than a year ago.

Some (like Ralph Peters) argue that's a good thing. Civil Wars are cleansing, if bloody, and often settle issues. Others point out that few Civil Wars end as well as the American one. However, the national strategy as dictated by the president involves creating a unified Iraq, and estabishing some form of local security and stability is a necessary first step that has reduced the tensions and pull back from the spectre of an all-out civil war. Without an addtional 200,000 trops, the only way to do that is to co-opt local forces into securing themselves.

Again, I call for a practical alternative to what we should have done to arrest the downward spiral in Iraq during 2006, given no change in strategic guidance.

I also caution against the simplification and lie that only money is behind the Awakening, it's simply a dispicable distortion and simplifiction, as much as the "soldiers on FOBs eating ice cream while Iraq burns" is.

J Wolfsberger
01-28-2008, 04:58 PM
I'd like to know how Colonel Macgregor thinks we should have brought them over? "Join us or die?" "Pretty please?"

We pay our troops and, except for left wingers, nobody believes they're only fighting for the money. We're providing the sheikhs economic support, and in turn they're supporting us. (BTW, that economic support is not the only thing that brought them over.)

In Macgregor's own words: "With millions of dollars in hand, the Sheikhs could reward the loyalty of their armed supporters, determine who would hold office, staff the police and reassert their control over Anbar’s towns and villages with their own arbitrary justice system." And this is bad ... how? And notice the use of "arbitrary." I suspect the use of "traditional" may have been more accurate and less ideological.

Let's add this: "... tribal identity is a dangerous step backward on the road to modernity and cash payments now make crushing tribalism later impossible for whatever regime rules in Baghdad. In Western Europe the process of eradicating tribalism took centuries and tribalism’s last great European bastion did not capitulate to the forces of modernization until well into the 18th Century." So his complaint is this interferes with "nation building?"

This strikes me as nothing more than another swipe at Bush masquerading as serious analysis.

davidbfpo
01-28-2008, 05:00 PM
The UK has invested and paid huge sums at home, in Northern Ireland during 'The Troubles'. Some of the money has been paid to community groups, a number of which developed into the political fronts for paramilitary groups - noably on the Loyalist side. Others have commented on the huge sums spent in Northern Ireland compared to the mainland UK. Any visitor to West Belfast or Londonderry over the years would comment on the changes.

Now tell me this type of spending in troublesome areas does not occur in the USA.

davidbfpo

Danny
01-28-2008, 06:42 PM
I tire of these populist narratives. Lt. Col. Gentile, I responded to your interesting and heart felt commentary in the IHT here:

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2008/01/27/why-are-we-succeeding-in-iraq-or-are-we/

Where I discussed the notion of singular narratives being adequate. Further, my views on payment for concerned citizens and tribal sheikhs can be found here and here and here:

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2007/11/12/are-we-bribing-the-sheikhs/

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2007/10/18/payment-to-concerned-citizens-strategy-of-genius-or-shame/

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2007/12/26/attacking-the-enemys-strategy-in-iraq/

A quick quote:

"Rather than an observation of the necessity for political progress, this statement follows the template of criticism set out by the left, and it has been followed with religious fervor. Note carefully what Drum charges. Rather than the seeds of violence being one thousand years of religious bigotry between Shi’a and Sunni, or recent history under Saddam’s rule, or the temptations of oil revenue in a land that has not ever seen the largesse of its natural resources due to corruption, the cause is said to be the “concerned local citizens” groups, i.e., U.S. strategy.

This outlandish claim betrays the presuppositions behind it - specifically, that it would be somehow better to continue the fighting than to, as they charge, buy peace with money. But for the hundreds of thousands of disaffected Sunni workers who have no means to support their families, this criticism is impotent and offers no alternative to working for the insurgency to feed their children. It ignores basic daily needs, and thus is a barren and unworkable view when considering the human condition.

The strategy all along has been one of ground-up counterinsurgency. The statements by military leadership in Iraq, far from hiding the fact that political progress must follow on the heels of military progress, show not only a knowledge of this fact, but demonstrate that it is this way by design. The intent from the beginning has been one of providing the window of opportunity for political reconciliation, at least insofar as the provision of basic human needs is concerned. In this way, command in Iraq has attacked the enemy’s strategy, and has done so with remarkable success."

Rank amateur
01-28-2008, 06:59 PM
But for the hundreds of thousands of disaffected Sunni workers who have no means to support their families,

If by your own admission the program is a socialist make work project, isn't it fair to point out that socialist make work programs never work? Isn't if fair to point out that when we stop the payments, and they will stop, the people will still have no alternatives and in fact will have lost whatever capitalistic skills they may have had? Don't we need to have a little good old fashioned Reagan economic common sense, even in Iraq?

Cavguy
01-28-2008, 07:14 PM
If by your own admission the program is a socialist make work project, isn't it fair to point out that socialist make work programs never work? Isn't if fair to point out that when we stop the payments, and they will stop, the people will still have no alternatives and in fact will have lost whatever capitalistic skills they may have had? Don't we need to have a little good old fashioned Reagan economic common sense, even in Iraq?

Reaganist models of economics work much better in societies with low corruption, stability, and rule of law. Trust me, the Arabs don't lack entrepreneurial skills. They do lack a market - i.e. a populace with the means to buy the goods. Without that means, the entrepreneurs can't expand/hire/etc.

Imagine every factory worker and civil servant in America being fired at the same time, and the effect on the economy. That's what happened in Iraq. In its place we told the "free market" to fix it, and generate new jobs. Also you should be aware that every Iraqi was on the equivalent of "food stamps" for daily needs. An entire generation under the age of 16 knows nothing but food handouts.

Like the tribal security, state supported jobs programs are not a long term fix, but perhaps a necessary one to getting an economy going. What investor would build a new factory in Iraq in 2008? Degrading infrastructure, limited power, and extortion from terrorists and gangs make Iraq and very risky proposition. There is no enforceable contract law. The free market can't fix Iraq until Iraq gets stable, and that includes giving families work, building stability, and begins to repair its critical infrastructure. Human infrastructure such as governments and courts are equally critical. The government must provide conditions for a free market to work. So in the meantime, state programs are critical.

Steve Blair
01-28-2008, 07:41 PM
Have to admit that I do like Macgregor's ideas on military reform, but I'm starting to find some of his commentary on UW/LIC to be a bit tedious if not poorly informed. I know Ricks' "Fiasco" has some harsh words about him, and if memory serves "Cobra" also takes some shots at his "go in small" ideas.

Rank amateur
01-28-2008, 07:44 PM
So in the meantime, state programs are critical.

I know you were there, so no disrespect to you, but it's not an economic development program, it's the worst kind of welfare: open ended. It's fine as a short term measure - most short term welfare has some value - but at some point we need to ask: so what and now what?

Cavguy
01-28-2008, 07:53 PM
I know you were there, so no disrespect to you, but it's not an economic development program, it's the worst kind of welfare: open ended. It's fine as a short term measure - most short term welfare has some value - but at some point we need to ask: so what and now what?

I'd just say we're not at "some point" for quite awhile. Right now we've taken the patient from critical condition into intensive care, the life support's going to have to be on for awhile.

J Wolfsberger
01-28-2008, 07:56 PM
I know you were there, so no disrespect to you, but it's not an economic development program, it's the worst kind of welfare: open ended. It's fine as a short term measure - most short term welfare has some value - but at some point we need to ask: so what and now what?

I think you may have misunderstood the point. Iraq is not a Western State with a well established social, economic and political infrastructure. I agree with what you are saying - if you were speaking of that type of state. The problem in Iraq is to provide, through whatever means, some level of subsistence while the infrastructure develops.

Cavguy
01-28-2008, 07:58 PM
Have to admit that I do like Macgregor's ideas on military reform, but I'm starting to find some of his commentary on UW/LIC to be a bit tedious if not poorly informed. I know Ricks' "Fiasco" has some harsh words about him, and if memory serves "Cobra" also takes some shots at his "go in small" ideas.

I just hate to see him head down the Hackworth/Peters path. Starting out with some really on-target stuff and get bogged down on kooky side issues and rants that alienate most people from the gold nuggets found in their writing, allowing people to dismiss their writings out of hand.

25% of Hackworth's stuff was absolutely brilliant. 75% was craptastic ranting. After "About Face" was published he went steadily downhill as his ranting drove those originally receptive away. Same with Peters. His stuff up until "Beyond Terror" was insightful and brilliant, and he's had a few since then. (I worshipped his "Parameters" articles from the 90s) However, todayit gets so lost in the vitrolic "New York Post" op-eds that now getting people to take him seriously is a challenge.

Danny
01-28-2008, 07:59 PM
" ... If by your own admission the program is a socialist make work project, isn't it fair to point out that socialist make work programs never work?"

I never said that it was a socialist make-work project. Those are your words. I would think that I was working pretty hard if I was risking my life protecting my neighborhood every day and manning a checkpoint.

Besides. What would you like to do with them? Kill them all?

The solution was always seen to be temporary. And finally, of all of the detractors and all of the criticisms of the tactic, I have yet to see a plausible alternative proferred.

Your objections fall on deaf ears until you can pose a realistic alternative. Have at it. Let's hear your ideas.

Cavguy
01-28-2008, 08:02 PM
I know you were there, so no disrespect to you, but it's not an economic development program, it's the worst kind of welfare: open ended. It's fine as a short term measure - most short term welfare has some value - but at some point we need to ask: so what and now what?

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of small business efforts underway as well. But it doesn't solve the economy.

And I guess I'll ask my favorite question on this thread - what's the realistic, practical alternative to fix the Iraqi economy in the short term without creating a welfare state? (i'm serious about this)

EDIT: Didn't see Danny's response. I'm channeling him today.... ;)

Steve Blair
01-28-2008, 08:34 PM
I just hate to see him head down the Hackworth/Peters path. Starting out with some really on-target stuff and get bogged down on kooky side issues and rants that alienate most people from the gold nuggets found in their writing, allowing people to dismiss their writings out of hand.

25% of Hackworth's stuff was absolutely brilliant. 75% was craptastic ranting. After "About Face" was published he went steadily downhill as his ranting drove those originally receptive away. Same with Peters. His stuff up until "Beyond Terror" was insightful and brilliant, and he's had a few since then. (I worshipped his "Parameters" articles from the 90s) However, todayit gets so lost in the vitrolic "New York Post" op-eds that now getting people to take him seriously is a challenge.

Agreed on all counts. Peters' early stuff was fascinating, and at least was serious enough that it got some people to think and debate it based on its merits. Now, like you say, he's really wandered down the Hackworth path.

Rob Thornton
01-28-2008, 10:21 PM
Kudos to CAVGUY and others for thinking about why, when and how you use money. We do this on a policy scale - using it as a diplomatic tool to shape our environments, to get players to see things more our way, to bring multiple regional players closer on issues which are mutually beneficial to us and them. There are many ways we do this - from FMS, to IMF and a host of other modifications - we've seen it as a strategic tool since we've been able.

What seems to be new to us, is the idea of money (in its raw form) as a tool to achieve tactical and operational goals - be they interim or others. Maybe it just seems at odds with our military culture to use money vs. other means - I don't know - that is probably a serious question that deserves serious thought.

However, I do see great utility in thinking about money, and how to spend it to achieve tactical and operational goals. DoD Directive 3000.5 basically says (paraphrased) where the (more) appropriate civilian agency is unable (due to conditions, or capacity?) to perform those functions & roles better suited to them, the military will assume (interim?) responsibility. This is going to create conditions where money (in its various incarnations) is handled at the tactical and operational levels to achieve tactical and operational objectives - it may have strategic effects/consequences to boot.

The conditions that will require that probably will include - SSTR type conditions like those found in Anbar (and other places in Iraq). I like CAVGUY's analysis:

Like the tribal security, state supported jobs programs are not a long term fix, but perhaps a necessary one to getting an economy going. What investor would build a new factory in Iraq in 2008? Degrading infrastructure, limited power, and extortion from terrorists and gangs make Iraq and very risky proposition. There is no enforceable contract law. The free market can't fix Iraq until Iraq gets stable, and that includes giving families work, building stability, and begins to repair its critical infrastructure. Human infrastructure such as governments and courts are equally critical. The government must provide conditions for a free market to work. So in the meantime, state programs are critical.

Folks can argue about it, but one thing that was bought (that is hard to buy at any price) was time - operational, and I think strategic time. In this case I think we got what we paid for and then some.

We've been very cognizant of its (money's) limitations, but I'm not sure we've considered its advantages - we're back to a culture issue. Its some of the same issues we have with contracting - but I'm not sure its fair to lump them in the same category. In theory - you are purchasing something with both - but with a contract, you get exactly what you pay for (although you might get less, or adverse consequences) - there is little potential for any greater return. However, if you can invest in people - as CAVGUY lays out, you may get a much better return (like investing, if you read the conditions wrong, you could see that money used against you, or no return on your investment - i.e. hollow) - this is not a fire and forget sort of transaction - but should be managed.

This is something I think we're going to have to get comfortable with. This is not exactly the same thing I think as SOF and/or CIA teams funding Northern Alliance chieftains. I have a buddy on a PRT who took suitcases full of money to do business all over Eastern Iraq - it was just the way business was done. He primarily did contracting type transactions - but those monies went into more then just providing services and materials for projects. It created action - it paid for trucks to move, stuff to be built, calls and visits to be made, etc.-some of it inside Iraq, some of it outside of Iraq. This was also tactical level Inter-Agency type stuff with operational and strategic effects.

I acknowledge there is both risk and difficulty in accurately attributing cause and effect relationships (both good and bad), but we have the same issues with other actions - lethal, or non-lethal. However, we still have to do our best analysis and make decisions on it, and conduct continued analysis, etc. - it is a dynamic and inter-active process.

At certain points on the "full spectrum" line, I think using money as a tool to achieve tactical and operational objectives makes sense - we do it because we can, and because in certain circumstances constraining ourselves to purely lethal ways of achieving those objectives may only worsen the operating conditions we have to overcome.

One of our SWC members "Stone" has some good experience as a contracting officer. I think this maybe something we're going to need more of to take advantage of money as a tactical and operational tool - certified contracting officers and NCOs - these tactical units will be the first to reach these remote places and alter the conditions where insurgency and instability have taken root. These same tactical units will also be the ones to more accurately gauge how that money is being spent, how it is impacting the local communities. These units will have to do this until conditions permit the more appropriate civilian folks in to manage it - as we've seen that is largely contingent on security - and in a environment charged with domestic politics (our own), the faster we can move to alter, modify, change the conditions to purchase more time for us or the HN to achieve its goals the more options we will find available to us. This is why it might be a good idea to bring "lawyers, guns and money"(:D couldn't resist) along with the other tools in our tool bag.

Best Regards, Rob

Ken White
01-28-2008, 10:36 PM
MacGregor (who's obviously lost the bubble) is aware of the fact that we've done this for a great many years, right? :D

We've paid our allies since the Philippines in the early years of the last century. We've paid people not to fight us for longer than that -- unless we wanted something they had, then we attacked 'em instead of paying.

The only difference between what we're doing now and what we did in WW II, Korea and Viet Nam is inflation. ;)

And, as Cav Guy pointed out, some here are making the same mistake MacGregor made -- judging this by western standards. You have the luxury of doing that, the Iraqis do not. They will judge by their standards and what we're doing makes perfect sense to them.

Ken White
01-28-2008, 11:08 PM
...
Now tell me this type of spending in troublesome areas does not occur in the USA.

davidbfpo

I sure wouldn't attempt to deny that... :wry:

Rex Brynen
01-28-2008, 11:13 PM
I agree with both Ken that deploying money to influence people (and to buy, or more accurately, rent, some immediate security) is hardly new, and with CavGuy that there was little realistic alternative. It was the smart response to a situation where AQI missteps, growing Sunni fear of Shiite power, and an ironic combination of both medium-term US staying power ("you can't chase us out") and long-term doubts about the US presence ("there's no pointing fighting them, they'll leave eventually, and then we'll have to face the Shiites..") all created potential alliances that money could help consolidate.

Given that, I think that casting it in a money good vs money bad debate (which I don't think many, if any, are doing here) rather misses the key issue: how do you maximize the benefits and minimize the potential negative consequences?

In Iraq, the benefits are further weakening AQI, reducing US and GoI casualties, enhancing security (and hence the potential for economic development) in Sunni areas, and perhaps using this as a basis for constructing local governance networks.

The downside is that it alarms the Shi'ites and Kurds, can be used by Iran to strengthen its local influence ("Look! They're arming Ba'thists!") strengthens groups that sometimes/often have both murky pasts and fairly extensive involvement in criminal networks, potentially undermines the rule of law and established institutional channels of authority (where these groups emerge as independent power centres), is potentially vulnerable to considerable corruption and diversion of funds, and can deter local investment (where armed groups start using their power and freedom of action to engage in parasitic business practices).

All of this, in turn, links to a complex set of issues--how payroll is handled, the extent to which the central government will authorize/regularize these groups, command and control, monitoring of intimidation/extortion/criminality, whether US forces on the ground have a firm grasp of the tribal/clan/family/political/economic dynamics at work, how this combined with a political strategy to move Iraq forward on the "big issues" (governance reform, inclusion, constitutional evolution, fiscal redistribution, etc).

So much of this depends on the nitty-gritty of who is doing what, how, where, and when that I certainly don't have any good answers (or even any grasp of how carefully its all being thought through, in a strategic sense).

Rank amateur
01-28-2008, 11:28 PM
In response to a number of people above, the problem is welfare economics 101. If you keep sending people a check until the find a job, they don't look for work. If you pay sheiks until they create a nice stable country, they won't create a nice stable country.

Undoubtedly, we've made a bad situation slightly less worse, but when the best arguments intelligent people can make in favour is "We had no other choice," and "the government wastes money at home too," I think you need to concede that it's not exactly the equivalent of raising the stars and stripes atop Mount Suribachi.


(or even any grasp of how carefully its all being thought through, in a strategic sense).

It's nice to know that I'm not the only one.

Ken White
01-29-2008, 12:01 AM
In response to a number of people above, the problem is welfare economics 101. If you keep sending people a check until the find a job, they don't look for work. If you pay sheiks until they create a nice stable country, they won't create a nice stable country.

If what you appear to think was happening was the fact, you'd be pretty well correct. They're getting some money -- and it goes to the Sheik to pay his people (after his rake off, of course -- it is the ME), for tribal welfare and for construction and other things. That money comes with few strings, transitioning to some strings and further transitioning to a lot of strings. The amount will vary depending upon performance. It isn't the mass give away you seem to think.

People cannot find jobs where there are none. All we could ever do in Iraq was open a window for them. We've done that. They've got to fix it themselves and all we have to do is hold the window open for a while. Think of it a a pre-Marshall Plan. Was that, BTW, welfare also?


Undoubtedly, we've made a bad situation slightly less worse, but when the best arguments intelligent people can make in favour is "We had no other choice," and "the government wastes money at home too," I think you need to concede that it's not exactly the equivalent of raising the stars and stripes atop Mount Suribachi.

Some may make those arguments, I'm not making them. All I'd say is that it's an eminently sensible approach, has been standard practice around the world for thousands of years and is the norm for business in the ME. I will say that it would be abysmally stupid NOT to do it.

Anyone who gets wrapped around the axle over Mt. Suribachi is living in a strange time warp. Those days are gone, probably never to return. There has not been a full bore, total warfare type "unconditional surrender" war since WW II and there's unlikely to be one in the future. There was never going to be a 'victory' in Iraq, the best result could be only an acceptable outcome -- which is highly probable.


It's nice to know that I'm not the only one.

Oh...

Uboat509
01-29-2008, 05:06 AM
This article serves to illustrate one of our biggest problems in Iraq. Namely, a complete lack of understanding of Iraqi culture. LTC MacGregor makes a comment that this program has "breathed new life" into tribalism, not just in Iraq, but all across the ME and Africa. I was not aware that tribalism was that close to death. Neither, I suspect, were the tribes. Tribalism has dominated the ME for how many thousands of years? Do people really believe that we were going to undo all that in a few years? Getting rid of tribalism is going to take more than a few democratic votes. It is going to take at least a generation and probably more in some areas. Tribe trumps everything for a significant percentage of the population. The tribes have always held considerable power and that is not going away. Consider this, Saddam Hussein had an extensive secret police network and a total willingness to resort to the kind of brutality that no western democracy would ever contemplate and he, ultimately had to deal with the tribes. The idea that we could be successful in Iraq without co-opting the tribes is not just wrong, it's delusional.

SFC W

Geoff
01-29-2008, 07:22 AM
This is a great thread, certainly more dynamic than CNN & a lot more brutal.

At the end of the day the USA has set itself up as the global policeman, the US govt decreed that regime change should take place in Iraq, so it happened. The Iraqi's has expectations when the US / Coalition forces arrived - that things were going to get better - water, electricity & jobs etc - they didn't materialise; so what did they do?

Coalesced into support groups and figured the best way to make the most out of the situation. We, the coalition powers failed at the top level to grasp the urgency of need & their expectations of us - the US & GB are not the only ones that want instant gratification!

In case anyone forgets these were the same Iraqi's who were "egged on" in '92 to rebel - with the promise of support - look what happened then!

Why should they not serve themselves, we should just let them have at it until they all say enough (my wife says that it might encourage us to be more eco friendly if there were less oil available - not too sure about that)

John T. Fishel
01-29-2008, 11:23 AM
RA--

You appear to assume that economics is some sort of exact science. Even though the economists want us to think that (and use all kinds of quant measures - tempered by assuming away anything that challenges their numbers - to prove their position) they can't even agree among themselves. There are a whole bunch of unreconstructed Keynsians out theire who totally disagree with the equally unreconstructed Friedmanites. We tend to believe the economists whose policy preferences most closely resembel our own.

So your view of welfare economics 101 really depends on where and with whom you studied it. Mine depends on an under read classic called Politics, Economics and Welfare by economist Charles E. Lindblom and political scientist Robert A. Dahl. Which only shows my prejudices against pure economists :wry:

Cheers

JohnT

Rank amateur
01-29-2008, 01:28 PM
RA--
So your view of welfare economics 101 really depends on where and with whom you studied it.

I switched majors after my freshman year. Economics bored the heck out of me. I drew a bunch of charts and never got to the point where people had different opinions on the charts. But I know what happens when the government creates demand for ethnic militias in an environment with many unemployed. (I can draw the chart.;)


.

Anyone who gets wrapped around the axle over Mt. Suribachi is living in a strange time warp. Those days are gone, probably never to return. There has not been a full bore, total warfare type "unconditional surrender" war since WW II and there's unlikely to be one in the future.


Tribalism has dominated the ME for how many thousands of years? Getting rid of tribalism is going to take more than a few democratic votes.

No disrespect to Cavguy or anyone else who was there: fog of war, friction, enemy gets a vote, making the best out of a bad situation is what you need to do. Since everyone is so comfortable on this path, however, and I agree with the two above comments, let's follow the path to the end. Since expecting surrender and democracy was unrealistic - as per Ken and Uboat - wouldn't paying Saddam to not develop WMDs, and to not cooperate with terrorists, have saved billions of dollars and many lives?

Ron Humphrey
01-29-2008, 04:37 PM
Since expecting surrender and democracy was unrealistic - as per Ken and Uboat - wouldn't paying Saddam to not develop WMDs, and to not cooperate with terrorists, have saved billions of dollars and many lives?

I may be mistaken but, I believe that had been tried in one form or another, and it apparently hadn't worked to well?

Watcher In The Middle
01-29-2008, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Rank Amateur:

Since expecting surrender and democracy was unrealistic - as per Ken and Uboat - wouldn't paying Saddam to not develop WMDs, and to not cooperate with terrorists, have saved billions of dollars and many lives?

...because, first off, Saddam & his bunch were a pretty bloodthirsty crew anyway, so the overall body count might very well of been similar to what actually occurred. Just different sets of bodies to count.

Secondly (and most importantly), how are you going to make sure he stays "Bought"? In this scenario, what's your hammer? Because you got to have one, and it better be a biggie.

And haven't even considered the issue of the Western "Goo Goo Types" (Good Government) who would be absolutely horrified at the crass concept of buying off somebody like Saddam.

You might not like the comparison, but what's the difference between our political parties here vrs. the tribal system in Iraq? Maybe the primary difference is that we have also developed other alternate methods of governance, which resulted in our version of the tribal system here mutating into our current political system. Something to think about.

Uboat509
01-29-2008, 05:18 PM
Watcher, arguably a comparison could be made between some sheiks and some politicians but for a conparrison with tribal society as a whole I would look to gangs, where first loyalty is to the group and the group dominates most or all aspects of life. It is an imperfect comparison but closer than anything else I can think of in the west. I am sure that Mark can do a much better job than I can with this.

RA,

I did not say that creating a democracy in Iraq was unrealistic, only that the timelines that some people expected were unrealistic. In any case, WE will not create a democracy in Iraq. Only the Iraqis can do that (and maybe Chuck Norris, but he's busy right now). We are setting the conditions for them to do just that but it will take time and I doubt it will look like a western democracy in any case. Paying off the sheiks (if you choose to call it that) is nothing more than a means to an end. Create security so that democracy or its Iraqi equivalent, has a chance to take root.

SFC W

Ken White
01-29-2008, 07:09 PM
...Since expecting surrender and democracy was unrealistic - as per Ken and Uboat - wouldn't paying Saddam to not develop WMDs, and to not cooperate with terrorists, have saved billions of dollars and many lives?

If Saddam developing WMD and cooperating with terrorists had been among the more important -- or even marginally important -- reasons for the invasion of Iraq, you might have a point.

Since I'm pretty sure that those 'reasons' were quite far down a long list of "Why the US invaded Iraq" I don't think they have much bearing. Looking at both those factors realistically and objectively, neither constitutes a casus belli in any sense; yes, they were trotted out -- but only because Bush didn't want to explain that the real reasons involved responding to the threat of international Islamist terrorism directed against the west by seizing bases in the ME and shaking up the neighborhood and Iraq happened to be both centrally located which made strategic sense and had a pariah regime which made such a blatant grab a little more palatable to some.

I think he suspected that he was going to get adverse rest of the world opinion and didn't want that to be made worse by telling the unvarnished truth. I also believe he was not deterred for a second by thoughts of such adverse opinion. Nor, IMO, should he have been.

He was also the recipient of incomplete advice from his Generals on the potentials in the aftermath of the attack. In fairness to them, they didn't know what to tell him because a number of their predecessors over 30 years had very foolishly and unrealistically tried to distance the Army from such actions. Frankly, I doubt that would have deterred him but we'll never know for sure.

I have to agree with UBoat on unrealistic expectations and with Watcher on the "staying bought" aspect. Saddam would've done what he wanted when he wanted so staying bought wasn't likely and to expect 3,000 years of history to be reversed in an American Sound Bite Minute of a few short years is extremely unrealistic.

TheCurmudgeon
01-29-2008, 07:27 PM
As I like to ferment hate and discontent, I am going to take a different view of all this. I see it as teaching federalism to the tribal leaders.

When the federal government wants to get the states to do something that the constitution does not give them direct authority to do, it uses money. An old example was the 55MPH speed limit. Congress tied road construction dollars to requiring the 55MPH speed limit. To get the money, you needed to tow the line.

Here you could do the same things. Get money, but strings attached. Yes this is hard to enforce. Yes you may be dealing with some nefarious characters (like politicians in the US). But it teaches a system where the local leaders are dependant on the power (money) that the central government has.


Just a thought.

Schmedlap
01-29-2008, 07:33 PM
In response to a number of people above, the problem is welfare economics 101. If you keep sending people a check until the find a job, they don't look for work. If you pay sheiks until they create a nice stable country, they won't create a nice stable country.


Since expecting surrender and democracy was unrealistic - as per Ken and Uboat - wouldn't paying Saddam to not develop WMDs, and to not cooperate with terrorists, have saved billions of dollars and many lives?

The knowledge of human nature and street smarts from the first quote are ignored in the second. Saddam was not someone whose regime could be trusted to adhere to an agreement or to even permit attempts to verify adherence. Paying Saddam to not develop WMDs sounds like a good way to create a market for not developing WMDs that other countries would have an interest in joining. It also raises the likelihood that payments would only be used to fund further WMD R&D and to fund terrorists or otherwise adversarial proxies through means more difficult to detect.

And Ken gave a good explanation above - that WMD were not the central issue. They were simply a central theme in the public relations piece.

Ron Humphrey
01-29-2008, 08:05 PM
As I like to ferment hate and discontent, I am going to take a different view of all this. I see it as teaching federalism to the tribal leaders.

When the federal government wants to get the states to do something that the constitution does not give them direct authority to do, it uses money. An old example was the 55MPH speed limit. Congress tied road construction dollars to requiring the 55MPH speed limit. To get the money, you needed to tow the line.

Here you could do the same things. Get money, but strings attached. Yes this is hard to enforce. Yes you may be dealing with some nefarious characters (like politicians in the US). But it teaches a system where the local leaders are dependant on the power (money) that the central government has.

Just a thought.

the added bonus that those local leaders will have the expectations of their people to continue providing them with what they want

Sounds pretty grass roots to me :D

BTW Rank,


A key step in a successful COIN effort is forcing the population to choose sides.

Economically, they have no choice but to go with the side that buys their opium. I heard one of the CNN generals say that we should buy opium from the population and use it to make morphine. I think that is about the only thing that might solve the problem.

Just remembered this from another topic. Why would it make sense to pay for product but not for security?