AL Anbar and DDR

[Strickland]

Would it be possible to create a Weapons Secure Area in Ramadi, Fallujah, or Al Qaim in an effort to curb violence and promote governance and justice? I am thinking of the efforts of UNAMIR (Romeo Dallaire) to create a Weapons Secure Area in Kigali, Rwanda in 1993-1994 when faced by multiple armed forces (RGF, RPF, Interhamwe, Impuzumgambi) during the civil war / sectarian violence. I believe the concept was sound, while the means or methods to enforce it were absent. Would this not also facilitate the return of PVOs to Al Anbar?

[Culpeper]

Rudy Giuliani impleneted "gun" control in NYC to curb violence to great effect. Hum. Is this guy running for President?

[120mm]

Rudy Giuliani impleneted "gun" control in NYC to curb violence to great effect. Hum. Is this guy running for President?

The Sullivan Act outlawed guns in NYC LONG before "Rudy". What Rudy did was to actually ENFORCE the existing laws, and not just the gun control ones.

Gun control in Iraq will result in disarming the honest and will certainly not result in "justice". The intent of the "one gun per house" law was to allow the Iraqis to think they had a sufficiency of self-defense. As the gun is a totem, I think this is wise and just.

The only effective gun control is the symbolic kind, after utterly defeating the other side of the conflict by military means. "Stack Arms" at the end of acknowledged military defeat has merit.

To remove the totem without removing the basis for conflict would actually make things worse, and be seen as unreasonable high-handedness on our part. I think it would push fence-sitters (if there are any left) to the other side.

In addition, we have been trying to remove RPGs and crew-served weapons since 2003. So other than seizing legal guns from homes and antagonizing the populous, what is to be accomplished by a Weapons Secure Area?

[Strickland]

Trust that I remember seizing "unauthorized weapons" vividly...What I am suggesting is that the Iraqis could retain their individual weapons initially, so long as they were in their home and registered. I think this first step could potentially increase the Iraqi familiarity and comfort with the local magistrate, courts, etc. Next, by declaring a Weapons Secure Area, you seek to get all militias, gangs, etc. to put away their weapons. At first they would have control of their own weapons (just like the IRA under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement). Yes, this legitimizes these group in some measure; however, if they truly have some agenda other than anarchy, this would allow them to participate in the process. All others who retained weapons on their persons could be dealt with (depending on the situation and threat) by the Iraqi Police. This step would also help the IP become a police force instead of a commando force, and give them one major task. Now, I am confident that there would be those who would not want to cooperate; however, these individuals would have to be dealt with (no different than the Real IRA, etc.) - there will always be someone who says no. Yes, this would take a tremendous law enforcement/policing effort; however, if it showed any promise or progress with the Iraqi people, it is a way in which to show them that their government is trying make it safe for them without killing or capturing 1/3 of the population. I am also of the impression that if we could actually create a Weapons Secure Area, that PVOs might be more inclined to re-join the effort in Iraq as well. Trust that I understand how difficult it is and all the reasons not to; however, if it could be worked out in Northern Ireland and in the DPR Congo, then there is some hope. We should not just say no because we immediately recognize that it will be too hard.

Question - when did carrying an AK-47 on your person or property become such a sacred totem to Iraqis - before, during, or after Saddam?

[120mm]

I'm thinking having the AK-47 is a replacement for Saddam's suppression of all sides. Without Saddam to exterminate all but his own thugs, there is an actual need to deter the unorganized thugs from various crimes.

I do not "get" this thread, as it advocates EXACTLY what Coalition Forces have been trying to do since OIF I.

[Strickland]

While admitedly I have only ever spent time in Al Anbar, I don't remember DDR EVER being policy, and would suggest that folks in USAID, the UN, or DoS that have experience with it would argue the same. Seizing RPGs or raiding houses for PE-4 is NOT the same as declaring an area a Weapons Secure Area, and thus allowing NO ONE to carry a weapon. If my memory is correct, in Anbar we allowed every male to have an AK-47 and 30 rounds of ammunition. What I am suggesting is that the same individuals would not be allowed to carry this weapon on their person OR in their vehicle. It also implies a different police presence, as well as a change in US force posture. We have NEVER tried to implement DDR in Iraq to my knowledge. I apologize for not articulating my DDR thoughts more clearly.