Macgregor's latest shot at the matrix: "Sheikhs For Sale"
Here is an oped by Doug Macgregor that is currently running in "Defense News."
Quote:
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.......
Tiresome Populist Narratives
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/...raq-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/...g-the-sheikhs/
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2007/...nius-or-shame/
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2007/...ategy-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."
What would you like to do?
" ... 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.
Everyone above bemoaning this and agreeing with
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.
I doubt you'll get any takers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davidbfpo
...
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: