AL Anbar and DDR

[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.

[120mm]

I think we can chalk this up to the "everyone has a different war" principle. In Sulah'din province it was my understanding that noone could openly carry weapons on their person or in their car. They were allowed to have one AK-47 and one loaded magazine in their house, as far as I know.

By "no one" do you mean CF soldiers as well?

[Strickland]

While a novice at DDR, the way I understand it, after the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, the Brits changed their force posture to one more akin to a police force, and thus had their weapons slung and aimed at the ground. In Rwanda, I believe the same is true for LtGen Romeo Dallaire, and in fact, I believe he had some personnel with no weapons at all. Admitedly, there are some huge risks in doing this, and not all areas of Iraq are anywhere near this stage yet.

I think most in the military perceive the "D" for disarmament as the hardest step, whereas most non-military folks would say that the remaining DR or demobilization and reintegration is where you need the real magic to make it work.

[goesh]

-he leaves his AK at the house thus the rule of 1 is broken and I presume repeatedly, the issue being I see no consequences, rather, what are the consequnces for violating the rule of 1 ? The Iraqi Constitutional mandate for 1 gun allowed per home is not going to be changed, but confiscation of extra weapons and questioning of some male over the offense must make it about impossible to enforce the rule of 1. How much does an Iraqi have to pay to buy an AK ? The buy-back programs in our inner cities is quite a joke and such a program there would be grounds for a lucrative fleece-the-Americans racket. I wish I had some answers or suggestions.

[Strickland]

I agree that buy-back programs are pointless; however, there has to be something of the Iraqis value more than weapons, and thus would be willing to trade. While I agree that the Iraqi Consititution provides hurdles for DDR efforts, there are plenty provisions in it that will most likely not stand the test of time, thus there is hope for change. For example, I doubt the provision demanding 20%+ female representation will last.

[120mm]

In the mind of an Iraqi male, his AK keeps his wife from being raped and he and his children from being murdered.

So, how much could you pay an Iraqi male in order to rape his wife, and murder him and his children?

Because that is the question you are asking.