News US Death Squads in Iraq: Solution or Escalation?

[the number 42]

"What to do about the deepening quagmire of Iraq? The Pentagon’s latest approach is being called "the Salvador option"—and the fact that it is being discussed at all is a measure of just how worried Donald Rumsfeld really is.

... one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads ... to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria... It remains unclear, however, whether this would be a policy of assassination or so-called "snatch" operations, in which the targets are sent to secret facilities for interrogation. The current thinking is that while U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria, activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries, officials tell NEWSWEEK.

Also being debated is which agency within the U.S. government—the Defense department or CIA—would take responsibility for such an operation".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/

 

[russ_watters]

So, teams of soldiers are going to go after insurgents. Could you explain to me the problem here...?

 

[PerennialII]

If it means fighting the insurgents with guerilla forces ("own insurgents") who don't really care that much whether any sort of rules of conduct are followed, and these actions are then considered acceptable and legal in Iraq, then it goes way beyond what is being done now. Might even argue that it would "legalize" the abhorrent means the insurgents are applying.

 

[russ_watters]

If it means fighting the insurgents with guerilla forces ("own insurgents") who don't really care that much whether any sort of rules of conduct are followed... [emphasis added]

Where are you seeing that?

 

[PerennialII]

I'm assuming that since they're loaning a term which has been used for example in reference to the actions in Central America in the 80s there might be something in common with the methods they'd be using. The implementation in this case could of course be anything, the dots from some sort of a local police force to death squads in historical sense have in all likelihood been connected by the reporting party.

 

[wasteofo2]

What exactly is the definition of a Death Squad, just a geurilla group? It's not like the rest of the military is over there with their guns and tanks NOT killing people...

 

[russ_watters]

What exactly is the definition of a Death Squad, just a geurilla group? It's not like the rest of the military is over there with their guns and tanks NOT killing people...

I think it has its roots with the Nazi SS, but doesn't really have a definition. Its not a military term. That's the first part of my objection here...

I'm assuming...

...and that's the second.

 

[PerennialII]

I wouldn't call myself an expert in giving a definition, but previously they've been adept in conducting assassinations and operations were civilian casualties haven't been a problem. I'd say it's a concept like promoting a civil war by aiding one party against the other with a gloves - off policy. It seems to be an effective way to destroy an internal enemy by promoting its local adversaries against it, and internal conflicts have a way of turning messy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PerennialII
I'm assuming...
...and that's the second.

I'd say all this is pretty much assumption, it's not like the US officials are going to state "we'll put up death squads".

 

[the number 42]

What exactly is the definition of a Death Squad, just a geurilla group? It's not like the rest of the military is over there with their guns and tanks NOT killing people...

I agree. I was using the term that the BBC World Service news report used. For the record, here is how the Oxford English Dictionary defines
death squad: "an armed paramilitary group formed to murder political enemies, suspected subversives, etc". So a quick look at the definition of paramilitary: "Of or pertaining to an organization, unit, force, etc., whose function or status is ancillary or analogous to that of military forces, but which is not a professional military force".

So it sounds like 'covert operations', a term too shadowy to be found in the OED. But it explains why it might be a bit of a hot potato, as implied in the statement: "Also being debated is which agency within the U.S. government—the Defense department or CIA—would take responsibility for such an operation". http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/

I have just turned up this description from former CIA director Stansfield Turner: "Covert action is the term that describes our efforts to influence the course of events in a foreign country without our role being known." Turner also notes that covert action "has always been assigned to the CIA to perform, by means of unattributable propaganda, sub rosa political action, or secret paramilitary support." http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA118.HTM

 

[selfAdjoint]

You could separate them by their targets.

Death squads target dissidents.

Insurgents target occupying troops and collaborators.

Terrorists target random civilians.

 

[the number 42]

You could separate them by their targets.

Death squads target dissidents.

Insurgents target occupying troops and collaborators.

Terrorists target random civilians.

If only life were so clear-cut. I reckon the poor old random civilian gets it from all sides, whether claimed accidental or colateral damage or whatever. In any case, it would fly in the face of fact to say that terrorists only target civilians. In the case of Iraq, from the news reports it sounds like the main target is the police.

 

[russ_watters]

If only life were so clear-cut. I reckon the poor old random civilian gets it from all sides, whether claimed accidental or colateral damage or whatever. In any case, it would fly in the face of fact to say that terrorists only target civilians. In the case of Iraq, from the news reports it sounds like the main target is the police.

The news reports rarely call them terrorists (at least in the US). The usual term is "insurgents." This reflects the nebulousity, but in my opinion, is too soft of a characterization: A significant fraction of those hit (because of the ease of hitting them) are civilians standing in line to apply for police jobs.

 

[kat]

erm...I believe that police are technically "civilian" and not considered legitimate military targets... unless they are..military police..which the iraqi police force are not, as opposed to the Iraqi military force..which would be a legitimate military target..

 

[the number 42]

erm...I believe that police are technically "civilian" and not considered legitimate military targets... unless they are..military police..which the iraqi police force are not, as opposed to the Iraqi military force..which would be a legitimate military target..

Who makes this distinction? I doubt the insurgents/terrorists do, and ABC News Online certainly don't:
"US troops who opened fire after being targeted by a roadside bomb have killed two Iraqi policemen and two civilians south of Baghdad on Saturday, an Interior Ministry spokesman said on Sunday".
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200501/s1279127.htm

 

[selfAdjoint]

It now looks from a press conference Rumsfeld had, that the Newsweek story may have been "creative", or at least derived from some deep internal memo that was never considered for implementation.

 

[tumor]

US death squads - how can this be? We only bring democracy and freedom to the oppressed masses.yeah right.wake up guys.

 

[Townsend]

US death squads - how can this be? We only bring democracy and freedom to the oppressed masses.yeah right.wake up guys.

Why is it that whenever the US is brought up you start up with your diatribe? If you want to be taken seriously then you need to keep your objectivity and clearly all you are capable of is objecting to anything the US does in its own best interest. It is incorrect to say that the US is all bad but at every opportunity you try to make it sound like it is.

Sorry for going on but I get pretty sick of reading the same anti-American crap come from the same people time after time. And I know this is the politics forums and if I do not like it I should avoide it blah blah...

I just do not understand how all these intelligent people on these forums are so completely subjective about everything...

Regards

 

[selfAdjoint]

Why is it that whenever the US is brought up you start up with your diatribe? If you want to be taken seriously then you need to keep your objectivity and clearly all you are capable of is objecting to anything the US does in its own best interest. It is incorrect to say that the US is all bad but at every opportunity you try to make it sound like it is.

Sorry for going on but I get pretty sick of reading the same anti-American crap come from the same people time after time. And I know this is the politics forums and if I do not like it I should avoide it blah blah...

I just do not understand how all these intelligent people on these forums are so completely subjective about everything...

Regards

So if wonderful America does death squads in it's own interests it is not to be criticised?

The US used to call itself a city on the hill, a beacon to mankind. What possible gain to our interests can balance the stain of evil we put on ourselves with tactics like death squads.

 

[the number 42]

Sorry for going on but I get pretty sick of reading the same anti-American crap come from the same people time after time. And I know this is the politics forums and if I do not like it I should avoide it blah blah...

I, for one, am pro-American, and am against the policies of the Bush administration. It is a cheap rhetorical trick to try to make out that
anti-Bush = anti-US, or that whole of the US supports the policies of the present government.

I am for what the US is supposed to represent in the world: freedom, truth, justice etc. These are things that the Bush administration seem to care little for. Stop resorting to whining about 'why everyone hates us'; this belongs in the kindergarden. If you have an intelligent point to make, make it.

 

[Townsend]

So if wonderful America does death squads in it's own interests it is not to be criticised?

The US used to call itself a city on the hill, a beacon to mankind. What possible gain to our interests can balance the stain of evil we put on ourselves with tactics like death squads.

I never said any such thing at all nor have I ever implied it. Never not once and if you would be so kind as to stop with assuming you already understand my point of view this would be obvious to you too.

I am all for reasonable criticism of our actions but I am totally getting sick of hearing things such as

"US death squads - how can this be? We only bring democracy and freedom to the oppressed masses.yeah right.wake up guys."

How can this kind of diatribe be construed as anything but diatribe?

 

[Townsend]

I, for one, am pro-American, and am against the policies of the Bush administration. It is a cheap rhetorical trick to try to make out that
anti-Bush = anti-US, or that whole of the US supports the policies of the present government.

I am for what the US is supposed to represent in the world: freedom, truth, justice etc. These are things that the Bush administration seem to care little for. Stop resorting to whining about 'why everyone hates us'; this belongs in the kindergarden. If you have an intelligent point to make, make it.

The only cheap tricks going on here is how you are acting like I said stuff I never did. If you would, please show me where I said I was supporting this military action like you are obviously assuming! Could you please elaborate on where I ever implied that anti-bush is the same as anti-American? I also never said that the whole of the US supports the current president and if you really want to know I only support him in so far as I believe in his economic policies and I believe we should have taken out Saddam long ago. I do not know whether it is his arrogance or ignorance but one way or another this particular president finally decided to take a chance and do what I am sure the last two presidents before him wanted to do.

I do not support Bush on about half of his policies and I seriously doubt that very many people completely support him. In fact there are a lot of things I really hate about his administration. But I do realize that not everything he does or even everything any government administration does is all bad. When that is all I hear from people it really starts to get under my skin because it takes away from any kind of intelligent debate that could be happening.


But, since you have already made up your mind and about what I am thinking then feel free to make any assumptions you wish and extrapolate all you want but that kind of childish behavior is way to immature for my way more mature kindergarten ideas!

Regards

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well Townsend you do seem to take every criticism of the US as a rant. Notice I said seem to. Both 42 and I, who are actually pretty thick skinned, took the post we responded to in just that way. Or do you practice bait and switch?

 

[russ_watters]

So if wonderful America does death squads in it's own interests it is not to be criticised?

No, if the issue is misrepresented by an overzealous reporter, that's a problem. Yes, there are legitimate problems with the US - what I (and apparently Townsend) object to is the knee-jerk reactions and misrepresentations by people with an anti-america bias.

 

[the number 42]

It now looks from a press conference Rumsfeld had, that the Newsweek story may have been "creative", or at least derived from some deep internal memo that was never considered for implementation.

Now that I've thought about it, it would be surprising if the US weren't involved in covert actions. Equally, I'd be amazed if Rumsfeld didn't deny it to the hilt, at least until things in Iraq had cooled down considerably. Do we have anything more concrete than his denials to go on?

 

[Townsend]

Now that I've thought about it, it would be surprising if the US weren't involved in covert actions. Equally, I'd be amazed if Rumsfeld didn't deny it to the hilt, at least until things in Iraq had cooled down considerably. Do we have anything more concrete than his denials to go on?

? Think man! If we were to actually know something about covert operations then they would not be covert operations. I believe it is fairly reasonable to say that most countries are involved in covert operations in foreign countries all the time. I think it would be pretty unreasonable to suggest that any country involved in armed conflict with another country is not involved in covert operations. I imagine that even countries like France and Germany have covert operatives in Iraq gathering intelligence as we speak. After all a big part of any military budget goes to intelligence gathering.

I really do not understand why you sound like you just had an epiphany about this.

Regards

 

[tumor]

I imagine that even countries like France and Germany have covert operatives in Iraq gathering intelligence as we speak.

France ?, Germany ? don't even mention them, because from what I read in your posts you going to gravitate slowly and blaming them for all US failures in Iraq.

PS. What was Abu-ghraib all about ?? was not that one huge death squad operation !

 

[Townsend]

France ?, Germany ? don't even mention them, because from what I read in your posts you going to gravitate slowly and blaming them for all US failures in Iraq.

PS. What was Abu-ghraib all about ?? was not that one huge death squad operation !

I do not blame them for US failures in Iraq I blame those who are responsible for them. I believe the buck stops with the person who had the authority over the situation and of course all those under him or her that did not object to the bad decision.

I used France and Germany because they are two countries who are obviously opposed to this war. The point being that even countries that are completely against war, like France, will be involved in covert opperations and they should be. There is nothing wrong with a country looking out for its own best interest.

Regards

 

[tumor]

Actually what US army is doing in Iraq is not looking for its own intetrests but for Israel's.American soldiers are dying fighting Israel's war.

 

[the number 42]

There is nothing wrong with a country looking out for its own best interest.

This sounds very like George W, and is only reasonable coming from a reasonable man. In GW's case, it implies that the ends can be made to justify the means. Why not a final solution then? Go on, you know you want to; they are all scum and you are doing it for the good.

 

[the number 42]

Actually what US army is doing in Iraq is not looking for its own intetrests but for Israel's.American soldiers are dying fighting Israel's war.

Pandora's Box alert! Pandora's Box alert!

 

[Burnsys]

I used France and Germany because they are two countries who are obviously opposed to this war. The point being that even countries that are completely against war, like France, will be involved in covert opperations and they should be. There is nothing wrong with a country looking out for its own best interest.

Regards

I am from argentina. then i guess i have the rigth to train a death squad cell and infiltrate it in american soil to do some "Selective Assasinations", hey, it's for my own best interest...

 

[Townsend]

a final solution ; they are all scum

This sounds very much like Adolf Hitler to me. But of course I am taking you out of context. I would appreciate it if you would please not take my words out of context to make it seem as if I am saying something I never did.



I really wonder why I ever bothered trying to communicate with you people.

 

[Townsend]

I am from argentina. then i guess i have the rigth to train a death squad cell and infiltrate it in american soil to do some "Selective Assasinations", hey, it's for my own best interest...

I never said that it was ok for the US or any other country to have death squads. Where on Earth are you getting your ideas from? Please take the time to read what I say carefully before you respond to it. If there is something you do not understand then ask me and I will do my best to answer. This can go for everyone on this message board including myself.

Often times we let our emotions respond for us. This is a mistake and this is a perfect example of someone who thinks they read something they did not read and so they responded emotionally to the situation. If they would have thought about it a bit more carefully they would realize what they are saying makes no sense at all.

Regards

 

[Townsend]

This sounds very like George W, and is only reasonable coming from a reasonable man. In GW's case, it implies that the ends can be made to justify the means. Why not a final solution then? Go on, you know you want to; they are all scum and you are doing it for the good.

Just to clarify, this post was made in response to an earlier post by me that said.

" There is nothing wrong with a country looking out for its own best interest."

Of course this is taken out of context but I contend that it is true by it self and so it is ok to be out of context.

The key to understanding this statement is to realize that while it is ok for a country to look out for its own best interest it is not ok for that country to do whatever it takes to get what is in its best interest. What I mean by that is, it is ok for a country to take steps in its own interest as long as that does not mean causing unreasonable amounts of harms.

As a specific example the US is very interested in gathering intelligence from its prisoners of war. It is in the US's best interest to gather this intel by whatever means necessary but it is NOT ok for the US to do that. Has the US done this? It would seem so and I am really disappointed and ashamed of those people who in committing such a heinous act, have brought discredit upon the entire United States.

What I am trying to get at is that by taking my words out of context and by misrepresenting what I a saying a few people here have made it out to sound like I am justifying brutal acts by any country as long as that country is doing what is in its own best interest. Obviously this is completely wrong and it really is sad that I should have to go through all of this for just a simple comment.

Regards

 

[russ_watters]

Why don't we just call them "Happy Squads"? That would make it more palateable.

 

[tumor]

Pandora's Box alert! Pandora's Box alert!

What you mean by that ? Is there something wrong with criticizing Israel ? Are you so PC as to forbid questioning policy of Israel.
US is only in Iraq because of Israel and its policy to dominate region.Soon you will see US fighting another war for Israel (mark my words) either with Syria or Iran.

 

[the number 42]

I really wonder why I ever bothered trying to communicate with you people.

Yes, its amazing that 'us people' don't just agree with everything you say. Don't worry, if 'you people' have your way it won't be long before freedom of expression is banned on the internet too. I'm sure this would suit you down to the ground.

 

[the number 42]

What you mean by that ? Is there something wrong with criticizing Israel ? Are you so PC as to forbid questioning policy of Israel.
US is only in Iraq because of Israel and its policy to dominate region.

I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out that discussion of the US & Israel tend to generate more heat than light. I agree that the US is there to 'defend its national interests', but you will get those who are dogmatically opposed to the idea. However, its such an important subject that it is worth going into a some point, not least beacuse many Muslims see what is happening to Palestine as reason enough to oppose the US, never mind Iraq.

 

[the number 42]

I believe it is fairly reasonable to say that most countries are involved in covert operations in foreign countries all the time. I think it would be pretty unreasonable to suggest that any country involved in armed conflict with another country is not involved in covert operations.

I never said that it was ok for the US or any other country to have death squads. Where on Earth are you getting your ideas from? Please take the time to read what I say carefully before you respond to it. If there is something you do not understand then ask me and I will do my best to answer. This can go for everyone on this message board including myself.

Often times we let our emotions respond for us. This is a mistake and this is a perfect example of someone who thinks they read something they did not read and so they responded emotionally to the situation. If they would have thought about it a bit more carefully they would realize what they are saying makes no sense at all.

Your use of the words 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' need clarifying, as they can be read as implying tacit support for the use of covert actions. Yes, I know you said 'reasonable to say', but if you are wondering why people are taking a different meaning from your words than you intended, listen up. Also, saying that any country at war will be involved in covert actions can easily be read as suggesting that it is natural and therefore correct that this is the case.

If you want to be understood, I suggest you take the time to express yourself more clearly and less ambiguously. Or perhaps you want to be misunderstood? It would also help if you wrote in a way that didn't make you sound as if you are a toddler deprived of its favourite toy.

 

[the number 42]

Why don't we just call them "Happy Squads"? That would make it more palateable.

Dressed as clowns. This would act as a cover, confuse the enemy once the attack began, and make great TV too. No more covert nasty actions, only fun, happy actions.

 

[Townsend]

Your use of the words 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' need clarifying, as they can be read as implying tacit support for the use of covert actions. Yes, I know you said 'reasonable to say', but if you are wondering why people are taking a different meaning from your words than you intended, listen up. Also, saying that any country at war will be involved in covert actions can easily be read as suggesting that it is natural and therefore correct that this is the case.

If you want to be understood, I suggest you take the time to express yourself more clearly and less ambiguously. Or perhaps you want to be misunderstood? It would also help if you wrote in a way that didn't make you sound as if you are a toddler deprived of its favourite toy.

I intentionally leave what I say as somewhat ambiguous because on some issues I can really go either way depending on new information. If I thought I knew it all then I would say so and why. What is wrong with me making a statement and leaving it open?

Your argument is that if person A says something that and does not clarify his or her position then it is ok to make assumptions to fill in the gaps. Well you are wrong! And you are acting like a toddler when you do so. I can be as ambiguous as I wish and you cannot say I said ANYTHING more or less than what I actually do say. Filling in information that I left out is counter productive to any discussion at all.

The only point I made in this thread is that people make anti American Knee jerk reactions without taking the time to think about it. I had NO intentions of saying anything more than that! It was your work and the work of SA and that took my words to mean anything more.

You are incorrect to say that I should have to make my position clear to prevent people from misunderstanding me. That idea is parallel to saying a woman who dresses and acts a certain way is asking to be raped. I never wanted to have a position on the subject of this thread. That is MY choice and I never gave you any information about how I feel about the subject of this thread.

I think the only reason that you want to argue some other position of mine is because you are king of the STRAW MAN tactic. Instead of just arguing against my argument you want to argue something completely different and then conclude that my original argument is therefore false. This is a fallacy that you seem to be well acquainted with and are trying to force it on me.

From Wikipedia:

“The straw-man rhetorical technique is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents actually offer. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, and then attribute that position to your opponent.

One can set up a straw man in several different ways:

1. Present only a portion of the opponent's arguments (often a weak one), refute it, and pretend that all of their arguments have been refuted.
2. Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
3. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
4. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute their arguments, and pretend that every argument for that position has been refuted.
5. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticised, and pretend that that person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.

Some logic textbooks define the straw-man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument. It is now common, however, to use the term to refer to all of these tactics.”

You are guilty of #3 in case you were wondering.

Why not just be a man and face the arguments directly?

For the love of human kind everywhere, please stop assuming people say something they did not say. If you really want to know where I stand then ask me and I will more than likely give you an ambiguous answer. Why would I do this you may ask? Because I might not want to discuss my opinion on that particular subject. That is my choice and it does not make it ok for you go on and assume what I think.

Regards

 

[Townsend]

Yes, its amazing that 'us people' don't just agree with everything you say. Don't worry, if 'you people' have your way it won't be long before freedom of expression is banned on the internet too. I'm sure this would suit you down to the ground.

I left that as completely ambiguous as I could and look at all the information you have filled in for me. I hope you feel smart and mature and all. I have a 10 year old niece who uses this technique to win arguments with her sister all the time. I know that when she grows up she will come to realize that this kind of behavior is childish and stop using it eventually.

By the way, how old did you say you were?

Regards

 

[tumor]

If I'm not mistaken in Vietnam US forcess used groups of soldiers equiped with helicopters etc, who were outside the law and were permitted to just kill and terrorise at will generall populace.
So...if in this war Americans don't have simmilar hit squads I must be Mother Theresa

 

[the number 42]

I intentionally leave what I say as somewhat ambiguous because on some issues I can really go either way depending on new information. If I thought I knew it all then I would say so and why. What is wrong with me making a statement and leaving it open?

You are incorrect to say that I should have to make my position clear to prevent people from misunderstanding me. That idea is parallel to saying a woman who dresses and acts a certain way is asking to be raped. I never wanted to have a position on the subject of this thread. That is MY choice and I never gave you any information about how I feel about the subject of this thread.

Stop! You're killing me! Why don't you just send a few posts like this to the terrorists - they would be helpless within minutes. Seriously, I'm glad to take the right to freedom of expression seriously, but frankly if you aren't prepared to say what you mean - you don't have to commit yourself to a postion, just try to say something that isn't open to misinterpretation - you have no right to expect to be understood, or to get a response. This goes for your straw man idea too. Do you really expect me to respond to every inane comment that is made? Sorry, but I have a life. Perhaps you'd feel happier if you stick to chatting to your nieces.