JOURNAL: The Salvador Option

As anticipated by this author, the DoD is now debating the broad use of loyalist paramilitaries in Iraq.  Newsweek reports on this active debate.  As the senior officer who leaked to Newsweek stated, "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing." 

The problems with this decentralization strategy are legion.  A major one is that the target minority (religion and ethnicity) isn't an isolated powerless subset, rather it is part of a larger majority in the Middle East and an ascendent revisionist movement.  The second major problem is that the US will puncture any remaining claim to moral superiority (see the brief on Boyd for more).

Comments

[Fred Schoeneman]

John,

Would you consider Britain's use of Malaysian (ethnic malay) policemen in conjunction with British troops against the (ethnic chinese) communists an example of this paramilitary strategy? And if so, why did it work?

f

[John Robb]

Fred, no. We are working with Shia and Kurdish police/guard forces right now. Loyalist paramilitaries are independent. The Malaysian conflict was small and isolated in comparison. It consisted of only 900 engagements and 6,700 rebel dead over 12 years of conflict. There are between 1,500-2,300 engagements a month in Iraq and thousands of rebel dead each month. It also was a rural backwater.

[EG]

Excuse my ignorance of this topic but what will keep the loyalist paramilitaries loyal? That is, why wouldn't this group fracture into a junta and against the government after we have left Iraq? There are much dissimilarity (ethnic and religious, to name two) within the membership to warrant them working cohesively after we have left.

[James Acres]

I don't understand the argument that we're losing our claim to moral authority.

At the end of the day, we buld sewage treatment plants. The enemy blows them up. Granted, that causes us all sorts of problems and might lose us the war -- but if I'm an Iraqi I've a hard time understanding why I wouldn't root for America to win.

[Cardenio]

Loyalist means they're loyal to themseleves and someplace, someplace else. They're not going to care who's ' in charge ' as their loyalties are elsewhere, that the point I think.

Also, we're not leaving Iraq, ever. That's not a goal. We're staying there if we go broke staying there AND we'll stay even if we're broke. No joke !

We'll get our ' moral superiority ' mojo working again after our little pals kill 300 kids someplace again and people don't forget about it half an hour later. Maybe they'll do it because they we're being taught evil ' western ' things see. Maybe next year.

This year I think it'll be elections, then assassinations, new elections, rinse and repeat.

[Marcello]

"At the end of the day, we buld sewage treatment plants. The enemy blows them up. Granted, that causes us all sorts of problems and might lose us the war -- but if I'm an Iraqi I've a hard time understanding why I wouldn't root for America to win"

It is quite simple, actually.If something goes wrong, then it must be the government fault.And since the americans are the government...

[Christopher Allbritton]

James-- You're thinking like an American. I'm over here in Baghdad right now, and most Iraqis feel they can build their own sewage plants just fine, thank you. They're some of the best trained engineers in the region, and they're proud of that.

Plus, they see the blowing up of the sewage plant as America's fault. The reasoning goes, "If the Americans, who are trying to build seage plants, weren't here, the muqawama wouldn't be attacking, killing the innocent in the process. Ergo, it's America's fault."

[Kevin de Bruxelles]

“I don't understand the argument that we're losing our claim to moral authority.”

Here is the key quote from the Newsweek article:

[Shahwani also said that the U.S. occupation has failed to crack the problem of broad support for the insurgency. The insurgents, he said, "are mostly in the Sunni areas where the population there, almost 200,000, is sympathetic to them." He said most Iraqi people do not actively support the insurgents or provide them with material or logistical help, but at the same time they won’t turn them in. One military source involved in the Pentagon debate agrees that this is the crux of the problem, and he suggests that new offensive operations are needed that would create a fear of aiding the insurgency. "The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists," he said. "From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation."]

Note the similarities between this proposed collective punishment doctrine and Bin Laden’s threats to the American people for not putting a stop to certain US policies.

This article is basically claiming that the United States of America is contemplating using terrorism as a tactic in the GWoT, which by most definitions, would be a declaration of defeat. It is hard to lecture others on the evils of terrorism if, when the chips are down, you use it as a tactic yourself. The Cold War equivalent would have been to set up an American politburo and to issue a Five Year Plan in order to defeat the Soviets.

It reminds me of the development of the Organisation de l'Armée Secrète which sprang up in the early sixties in Algeria in the wake of the failed coup against Charles de Gaulle. The OAS not only fought the regular French Army (there actually was a small scale civil war), but more relevant to this comparison, they launched a politically suicidal terrorist campaign against the Algerian people. Frustrated at not being able to find FLN targets, the OAS cadres took to attacking schools, hospitals and would often just drive around in cars gunning down random Algerians as they passed them on the street. They wanted to show their resolve towards keeping Algeria French. In the end all they did was make the murderous FLN look like boy scouts in comparison and assured Frances total political defeat, almost every single pied noir was forced to flee Algeria.

The article at the very least hints that the US, frustrated at a deleterious lack of intelligence on the insurgents while at the same time armed to their teeth in high-tech weaponry, is planning to start draining the sea within which these guerrillas are swimming. The primary objective of any insurgency is to stop local people from collaborating with the occupiers. This is clearly being achieved in the Sunni areas at least. The proposed US strategy would be to scare the locals more than the insurgents are, thus winning their loyalties. This would involve massacring tens of thousands of Sunnis in the hope that the survivors would get the message and start collaborating. In the end we will make Saddam look like an angel in comparison, no mean achievement by the way.

[Billmon]

If Iraq isn't already on the brink of a civil war, then trying to use Kurdish and Shia death squads to terrorize the Sunni population is an excellent way to start one. At this point, I don't know if Rumsfeld and company have completely lost their heads, or actually WANT to start a civil war in order to perpetuate Shia reliance on American power after the "elections."

Panic and stupidity seem the more likely explanation (I'm more cynical than paranoid these days.) But who really knows?

[Haydar]

At the risk of redundancy from a previous comment, the Shia' community in Iraq is not going to be well disposed to working with the Americans in this way. They are more defensively oriented, with their militias concentrated on providing security in places like Najaf and Karbala. These militias are also deeply influenced or controlled directly by religious scholars, which sets ethical parameters for their operations.

The one place where U.S. and Shia' interests come together is in securing the area south of Baghdad now known as the "triangle of death." This is an important route for piligrims, as well as for anyone who wants to do business in Baghdad.

[Osama_been_forgotten]

"Salvadoran" option is just bluster.

Any potential "loyalist guerilla" force was Chalabi's fan-club. THey've already been either selected for cushy government jobs, or disgraced as US Puppets by Sadr, in the Shiite-space of the ethnic map.

Sunnis aren't going to side with the US for obvious reasons.

Lastly, there's the Kurds. And I think we'd have to throw them a bone to make them "loyal". But I don't think that our ally Turkey wants us feeding that dog. We may make that choice, but it's going to have consequences.

[J.H.C]

I think this is the dumbest idea that these folks have come up with yet! Dumber than not properly dealing with the power structures in Iraq (read Sunni establishment and Baath'ists). Paul Bremer knowingly or unknowingly essentially caused a revolutionary upheavel in the power structures without giving them anything in return.

Its the same kind of inclination that some commenters have exhibited here ("throw them a bone" here, "smokem" there). Bottom line is, if you think "sand-nigga" is gonna run away -- just cuz in your racist mind you think so, and every dogdamn gun-blazin holly-wood prole-feedin movie tells you so -- you've got another think coming.

Back to the "loyalist" argument. Loyalist to WHO? to the US? to that ridiculous arse-wipe Chalabi? To the people who are already considered "collaborators" and have NO base in the soft power structures? Who the F. are they kiddin? quite possibly just themselves.

Sunni's are fighting to re[g,t]ain the power they had, and there are ideological underpinnings to that. You CANNOT fight an ideologically motivated armed force [sunni insurgents] without an equally motivated force [this so called "loyalist army"]. This force will be just another group of mercenaries to the insurgency unless they have philosophical underpinnings to get them through the rough fight. If fighting the insurgents is hard for the US soldiers, wouldn't it be harder for a less prepared force?

I mean, are there ANY operational tactics that the U.S. occupation forces have not tried? Short of shooting women and children in the head point blank. This is the only tactic that these peshmerga and shia and other "loyalist" mercenaries could add to the repertoire of the tactics being "committed" by the U.S forces.

Shia's are looking at things strategically, and will never burn their bridges with the sunni's. Turky will have real problems with Kurds trained in commando operations, essentially trained to kill at will. What is to say these forces will not be used towards the creation of a Kurd homeland. Plus, these forces (shia and peshmerga) were never ideologically bred to kill their own race (pretty much) cuz some white guys showed up one day and promised they will give them political-power-candy if they did so. You'll have to get real hard-ass criminals to do this kind of death-squad shit, and most of those criminals are probably already on the side of the insurgency. Checkmate.

Unfortunately, no-one is "loyal" to the U.S. there, except for people sitting in a firkin fortress. Even they (allawi, chalabi, etc.) are biding their time to turn on the US, or it will be their hides when the US and the Brits turn and "withdraw" after "achieving their objectives". Remember vietnam withdrawl? things tend to become real interesting for people who are conveniently abandoned by occupying powers (subsequently considered collaborators by the incoming insurgent forces).

Just because the only tool Negroponte ever developed was the "contra hammer", every situation assigned to him looks (to him alt least) like a "salvadoran nail". The south american counter revolutionary forces had three things working for them:

1. ideology (anti communist and inherently racist towards the underprivileged which most gorilla forces comprised of [indians, mix races])
2. source of money ( drug trde, arms trade, minerals )
3. A relatively docile countryside which WAS NOT armed.

Situation in Iraq is different. for each of the items above.

1. ideology (Shia/Kurd/Sunni's work under the same ideology of jihad, with different operational approaches). Most will find common cause (same race, same religion, same mindset, a lot less racist thinking towards each other, pretty much nothing compared to the racist brainwashing that a typical U.S "killling machine" goes through)
2. Sources of money (how will this "loyal" counter-insurgency feed itself? Oil? Will the US have to create independent fiefdoms with warlords ? I doubt wall street will allow this type of fragmentation of a still-useable-and-exploitable economy)
3. The sunnis who are not actively supporting the insurgency are not just docile civilians. The tribal mindset is different than the tamed and subjugated catholic/native-amerindian mindset of the south american peasantry. This group (sunnis, mostly with connection to older and currently fighting power structures , namely: Baath party, Republican Guards) is just as violent as the US forces.

In terms of unleashing an un-imaginable firepower upon the Iraqis who are "not paying any price" (quiet sunni supporters) no one can match the U.S. soldier. Period. Pretty much every single one of you reading this has seen one or more video of a valiant warrior emptying a 500 round chain into a long-gone-dead-once-human-body of a "terrorist". And if that kind of viciousness has not been able to rein in the insurgency, then it is just plain dumb-assity to think that killing the so-called supporters (civilians mainly women,children,old ppl giving soft support ie; cooking and doing dishes for the insurgents) will stop the support base. Who is to say these hitherto passive supporters will not pickup arms once they start hearing about these death squads roaming about and killing civilians? and start shooting back?

The immense U.S. firepower and the potential of death has not dettered 50,000 of these ppl (by one iraqi official's account) to become actively engaged in fighting the most feared (and the most powerful and awesome) army on the face of the planet? Who is the say that the rest of the 150 thousand will not pick up arms and join the fray when they know they are being attacked by death squads anyway? Can any of us dill-weeds sitting in the temprature controlled cushiness of our movie-set homes even begin to identify with the despair that someone in the sunni triangle might feel? Mix that in with a violent and explosive ideology of reactionary islam and you have people who keep shooting at tanks until they are shredded by heavy machine gun fire (quite a few accounts of this are floating around on the 'Net)

At best, this will be a dangerous gamble by dillweed "planners" who think they are fighting a classical communist gorrilla warfare, more than a decade after soviet union is dead and gone. Most communist gorrillas had internal philosophical frameworks that did not exhult dying and thus going straight to heaven.

I think this is just a ruse by the Pentagon, to pretend to the world at large and say "Look, we could have used the death squads, but we are so law abiding, we didn't do it. " There by implying that whatever is happening in Iraq right now is not as heinous as death squads roaming the country sides. For all intents and purposes, the current U.S. counter insurgency "teams" are doing no less than what the death-squads did. Except that there are these messy civilians and all their god-dammned paperwork. Solution? Just shoot'em in the head? WTF??????????

This will not work, and will be more catastrophic than Paul Bremmer's stupid disbanding of the Iraqi Army and "De-Bathification" thereby pissing off the sunni establishment. I mean if you can deal with assholes and criminals like Nasser of egypt, Pinochet of Chile, Shah of Iran, even the Khomenie (Iran contra), that Criminal Sukarno of indonesia, and every other distasteful nation-looting-for-you-criminal on the face of the earth, what really is wrong with dealing with Baathists, majority of whom were there to just get a job anyway. I man you dealt with Van Braun, With Putin after the "commies" fell on their faces didn't ya?

You have got to wonder: What the F was Paul Bremmer smoking.

The only way out for the U.S. would be to eat crow, swallow its pride, and get the heads of the Sunni Tribes and other power structures involved in the power sharing process. Otherwise, this "death squad" thing will be another fad in a rapidly deteriorating insurgency which may not stay within the borders of Iraq for long. If the civil war and revolutionary sentiment spills into Saudi Arabia, our little "planners" are gonna have a big frikkin problems at their hands.

In conclusion, the problem is, no one is looking at a political solution to the problem, and behind is the racist mindset that these people (Iraqis: referred to as "hajji" by the enlightened ones, and "towel-heads" and "sand-niggers" by the "I'm not racist" types in the liberating forces) are not worth negotiating with. "We think we can shoot our way out of this one" mentality hasn't worked, and sadly and quite possibly will NEVER work.

[dialectic]

Well, J.H.C., I'd call you to task for posting a merely unrestrained rant, except that I agree with every single word. How's that for criticism?!?!

On a more immediate issue, the tension building up around the Jan. 30 election is getting really interesting. Things have come to the point where the US can't abide the election getting cancelled, and at the same time can't abide having it held.

The former, of course, is quite easily understood. Simply put, if the election gets cancelled - no matter what excuse is given - then the US will suffer a major political defeat, with extensive worldwide repercussions. A cancellation of the election will entirely void the "bringing democracy to the downtrodden" fig-leaf. That ideological prop is not merely some facile incantation, but is a vital component of the imperial project. Yes, even empires need justifications.

The second option facing the US – specifically, dealing with an overwhelming Shiite electoral victory – is starting to appear like nothing so much as an unrelieved nightmare for the US ‘anti-terrorist’ campaign. Because, it appears al-Sistani now understands that an immediate, extensive series of accommodations are going to have to be made with the forces of the Iraqi Resistance. Almost the day after the election, al-Sistani, the SCIRI, et al will have to PUBLICALLY and unequivocally tell the Americans to leave. This, obviously enough, is because no imaginable incoming government has – or will have for a very long time to come – the means to enter into and sustain operations against the Resistance. Even the Americans cannot defeat them, and the ‘new’ Iraqi government has absolutely no chance whatsoever of reigning in anti-occupation and/or anti-state operations.

So the Americans will have to be told to go, go totally (secret bases and all), and go pretty much immediately (e.g.; within ninety days, give or take a month or two). Kicking out the Americans is likely to be the only option the incoming government will have in order to avoid finding itself continually chopped to pieces by the jihadists and their ilk. But the implications of that necessity – if such it be – is that Iraq probably will devolve into a tribalized, but essentially failed, state. As the Resistance ruled Falluja as an autonomous zone prior to its getting Nanking-ized beginning in November, so many Falluja-style autonomous zones may spring up throughout Iraq: certainly throughout the Sunni regions.

Thus the US will be faced with an enormous failed state, packed full of people who are exceedingly pissed-off at simply everything in sight, and which may very likely become one huge terror training camp a la Afghanistan under the Taliban. Under such a scenario, a brutal civil war of many years duration, stoked by US backed para-military death squads, may start to seem a viable option. Or at any rate, one that is potentially far less costly to the reputation and power of the US than the alternative. IF a civil war can be avoided, them Osama, undeniably, will come out the big winner.

And thank you for reading MY rant.

dialectic

[Mark]

"no one is looking at a political solution to the problem, and behind is the racist mindset that these people (Iraqis: referred to as "hajji" by the enlightened ones, and "towel-heads" and "sand-niggers" by the "I'm not racist" types in the liberating forces) are not worth negotiating with."

If I understand mr Robb's writings, the reason no one is looking at a political solution to the problem is that Iraq is home to a global guerilla operation. Because of the decentralized nature of global guerillas, a political solution is not possible as there is no central authority with which to negotiate. It has nothing to do with racism. This, of course, doesn't mean "shooting our way out" will work, but our options are somewhat limited.

[J.H.C]

My apologies for the rant, It is just a stream of consciousness post, and I am just fuming at how this project has been botched when there was a real opportunity for democracy (and economic "usage" by wallstreet a'la North Korea etc.)

And Mark, I agree, right now its hard to do _any_ sort of negotiating, but what really gets my goat is that we didn't have to be here, and there really was a possibility to work with the existing structures in Iraq. This insurgency didn't exist in the very beginning, and the repeated "Palesteninan Ghetto" treatment that these people have recieved (in-discriminate killing, house demolitions, arrests, humiliating treatment) has turned them into arch enemies of the U.S. and a seething sesspool of a jihadist recruiting bonanza.

I contend that this can still be reversed, but only if the powers that be (U.S. military and also Cheney,Wolfowitz etc) are willing to give the Sunni's a piece of the pie they have lost, and are so spitting mad about. Don't let the economic factors turn into religious hate that the OBL and Zarqawi's of the so aptly called "global guerillas" can feed upon.

everyone, please accept my apologies for the above rant, but the situation is most disheartening.

[dialectic]

J.H.C.:

You shouldn't apologize for the rant. It has lots of very good stuff in it, and is clearly heart-felt. Good for you!

It seems very problematic that there is any way out other than what Mark referred to as "shooting our way out." There are, of course, many, many reasons for the difficulties; historical, social, political, cultural, military, etc. etc. Those reasons have been covered here and elsewhere in great detail.

I will only add a brief comment concerning the economic dimension. In re "giving the Sunni's a piece of the pie," a major problem is that the "pie" has long since been divided up among the power players. None of them feel they have enough as it is, given that the destruction of infrastructure and productive capacity in Iraq is severe. Consequently, handing any "pie" back to the Sunni's is thought to be impossible by all parties concerned.

The decision makers of "pie distribution" are, of course, in Washington DC. Starting already under Bremer's pro-consulship, the basic program has been to disenfranchise all indigenous Iraqi capability, devolving that country into complete economic subservience to US capital. Other than installing a comprador regime, endowed with limited internal policing capability, and apart from minimal involvement with the oil extraction sector, Iraq is being entirely colonized by US firms. It has become a huge “happy hunting ground” for US investment. By and large, all groups and segments of Iraqi society are standing on the outside of the “grand economic plan” that is being rapidly put in place. Again, the only Iraqi elements that are allowed a small seat at the feast are strictly comprador elements: i.e.; Allawi, and other thieves of that ilk.

You wrote:

“but what really gets my goat is that we didn't have to be here,”

Not so sure about that. After the dot-com crash that began in April of 2000, it started to look like a very difficult investment climate was in store in the universe of international speculative finance capital. ‘Breaking’ a society such as Iraq, then invading and colonizing for purposes of providing significantly improved returns on investment in the military-industrial sector was quickly seen as the ideal solution. Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al saw that very clearly not later than the late summer of that same year. So I suggest that America did have to “be there,” for almost no other viable investment-enhancing projects appeared doable. The goal of capitalism, let us remember, is constantly to re-ignite cycles of high-intensity expropriation and thus capital accumulation. When traditional investment sectors go sour, new ones must be found.

You wrote:

“and the repeated "Palesteninan Ghetto" treatment that these people have recieved (in-discriminate killing, house demolitions, arrests, humiliating treatment) has turned them into arch enemies of the U.S. and a seething sesspool of a jihadist recruiting bonanza.” - sic

And this is a problem?

Seen from the standpoint of the long-term investment strategic imperatives of North Atlantic capital (Wall Street, and the City of London), a perpetual guerilla war in the Middle East looks more like the SOLUTION to what would otherwise be much worse, much more intractable problems. To be sure it’s a human and environmental disaster, sickening and destructive in every way. But that’s precisely the point. Key elements of finance capital – those focused on the military-industrial sector – are unalterably dependent on the perpetuation of war ever-lasting. They have found a way to realize enormous profits, all of which depends on the continual production of an adequate supply of enemies.

There must be ceaseless war, else the North Atlantic “life-style” will implode. War without end in the peripheral regions of the world economic system represents an indispensable “safety valve,” whereby the deep-structural irrationalities of the North Atlantic societies of hyper-consumption are “exported,” so to speak, into other regions and onto the bodies of other peoples. For that system to work, the war must not stop, but continue without cease.

True, every so often a little pin-prick such as Sept. 11, 2001 will occur. But those are tiny and completely acceptable costs in light of the greater gain. Those who are already ultra-wealthy are doing just fine, so there’s no reason to criticize the current set up.

No reason to criticize, that is, according to Wall Street.

dialectic

[Marcello]

"I think this is just a ruse by the Pentagon, to pretend to the world at large and say "Look, we could have used the death squads, but we are so law abiding, we didn't do it. "

I have already said it once and I will repeat it again:
do not overthink issues too much.If the various Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of the gang are geniuses, they have yet to show it.
They probably believe that if they kill/make life unbearable for enough people the locals will give up.
From a certain point of view they are indeed right, as Stalin noted "Death solves all problems - no man, no problem":when every sunni will be dead or in a concentration camp the sunni insurgency will surely be over.
Now that the palestinians are being stuffed into pens their terrorist campaign is petering out.
But they probably think they will have only to kill a relatively small fraction of the population to achieve the same objective.The survivors will then bend over and play at the proamerican democracy game.That, I suspect, is where the problem of their approach lay.
They are make the same mistake that Dohuet did in assuming that the populations under bombings would force the governments to sue for peace ASAP.
What happens is instead that the people's resolve may in some cases be strenghtened.That may be what is at work here.If that is the case the policy will produce the desired results only if brought at its extreme consequences.
Withdrawal is not an option, for now.That would have a lot of bad consequences (leaving a failed state and a possible training ground for terrorists behind etc).
Without mentioning that the "new american century" and possibly its proponents will end in the dustbin of history.They will not swallow that pill easily.
So I think you can bet that things will get ugly and uglier still.

[J.H.C]

Marcello, unfortunately, some of the PNAC pinheads might end up in the dustbins of history nonetheless. Sometimes one is forced to swallow the bitter pill of defeat. FOTG are merciless things. Your allusion to Douhet is apt. Ironically, Rummy et. al started out with the Shock and Awe that would have given ole Giulio a woody, but that was not to be. Now no-one in the over-eager-ass-kiss media talks of the "wave of steel" or the "Shock and Awe" or how many tonnes of a flesh ripper of a fighting machine an abrams tank is. Pretty much everyone in the ra-ra-media seems to have lost their easy-killing induced erections by now.

Dialectic, I will try to clarify just one point re: "We didn't have to be here". I agree that being in Iraq was a foregone conclusion, but what prompted the blurb above was my (perhaps misguided and naive) belief that there is a middle way. That even though these powers _had_ to be in Iraq, they didn't have to find themselves in the predicament that they are finding themselves in right now. What I meant is that out of all the possible paths that this mess could have taken (post Garner) this current one took a lot of foolishness.

I agree that the Noamo-Goresque perpetual war is generally needed to keep the flame of "freedom" burning, but my contention is that there really isn't a need to brutalize the very subjects that you are aiming to exploit for the next few decades.

A case in point is the vastly exploited and mind-controlled western populations themselves. They got to taste the "social-democratic" nectar while the commie boogie man was around, but since that thing has collapsed, most of these benefits are now being rolled back (social security, health-care, water, retirement pensions etc.) The corporate message to the "chattel" (most of us worker bees) is .. "whatchoo gonna do about it biatch?"

I guess, if the empire was to be considered a rapist, they are only "date-raping" their own populations (namely us) while acting like psycho serial rapists to the underprivileged populations of the world. Pretty much taking a baseball bat and a broken glass bottle to their victim and going at it after they're done raping them. That is just uncalled for. Not to mention extremely counter-productive. The only thing I can think of that accounts for this behaviour is an overwhelming hatred of the "inferior animal other". Call it Iraqi today, will be Paki or Korean tomorrow.

Perhaps this is overly optimistic on my part, but I tend to believe that the populations at the periphery can also be exploited in a more humane way, but in reality they are not, and this disregard for these peoples human dignity stems from the instinctual and historical in-bred racist attitudes of those fiddling with the power knobs in the empire's control rooms.

This high intensity violence and utter contempt for those that this omnipotent (in its own mind) empire seeks to exploit, will (IMO), be the catalyst for the eventual levy breaking anti-thesis to the capitalist thesis that is the unipolar world of tomorrow's yesterday.

[Marcello]

"Ironically, Rummy et. al started out with the Shock and Awe that would have given ole Giulio a woody, but that was not to be."

Probably no.The idea behind strategic bombing was terrorizing the civilian population into forcing the enemy government to sue for peace.This, if I recall correctly, was to be accomplished by targeting the population centers with a bombing campaign designed to cause massive amounts of civilian casualties (with a synergic use of conventional, incendiary and chemical bombs).
Shock & awe was aimed against the regime directly.The population (and everyone else) was supposed to take notice but was not targeted directly.The population was supposed to be friendly to the US and the regime was weak, so massive attacks the civilians made little sense.
The best otption now would probably be the new shiite
government asking us to leave short after the elections without leaving bases and such.We could leave, throw some money at them and pray that Sistani & Co manage to cut the necessary deals with Kurds and Sunnis.
Other than that it will be just sitting here killing people until either the americans or the locals get tired and swallow the bitter pill, or in the latter case they are wiped out.

[Tom Grey - Liberty Dad]

It's double standard annoying how so many anti-War folk claim a) the US has no moral authority, and b) if the US keeps fighting as they are, or in some other way, they will lose their moral authority.

John, can I challenge you about where you last agreed that the USA has more moral authority than the current anti-democracy Death Squads?

I expect that after 1 Feb., the Iraqi National Police, under the control of an elected Iraqi gov't, will be a lot tougher on rebel Death Squads. It will be interesting to see how tough on the mostly quiet on-lookers.

I don't see many constructive ideas here about how to fight an organized crime like anti-democract Death Squad group.

One that comes to mind for me is hiring a LOT more local Iraqi security guards, to work with the INP in guarding small sections of their local neighborhoods.

[Marcello]

"I expect that after 1 Feb., the Iraqi National Police, under the control of an elected Iraqi gov't, will be a lot tougher on rebel Death Squads. It will be interesting to see how tough on the mostly quiet on-lookers."

Out of curiosity,do you believe that the morning of 2 Feb the average iraqi policeman will wake up in the morning and say "who cares about insurgents retaliating against my family,now we have DEMOCRACY so let's go out to kick their asses"? Why should that be the case?

[dialectic]

By and large Iraq is already a failed state. The central geographic region (Baghdad et al) is rapidly transitioning into what John Robb calls a TAZ (temporary autonomous zone). That process isn't yet entirely complete, but most certainly is very far along.

What is still to be decided is the final, detailed form that failed state will assume. Will general conditions outside the green zone remain so lethal that the successor "government" will be unable to exercise control over its own internal (governmental) functions? Will US forces stay holed up in fortified bases and enclaves, occasionally emerging only for the purpose of practicing rape and slaughter on the indigenous population? Or will US forces be forced to withdraw completely from Iraq, to peripheral positions in Kuwait, Jordan, et al, thus for an indeterminate period of time containing from a distance the terrorist "infection" its own policies engendered?

No, I don’t know what conditions on the ground in Iraq will be like a year from now either. However, it seems clear that politics has long since taken a back seat as a determinant of those questions. Economics is in the drivers seat – that is, economic conditions in the world centers of finance capital – and to the degree that Iraq, in the form of a “Failed State,” promises to remain beneficial to the world capitalist system, then I think we will continue to see the implementation of such policies as the ‘El Salvador’ option that serve to perpetuate that state of affairs.

Another interesting set of questions have to do with whether Iraq will be more effective as a base of operations for projecting force throughout the middle east if it becomes ‘stable,’ or if it remains in extreme turmoil. Interestingly enough, a strong case can be made that having Iraq beset by a raging guerilla war constitutes a more effective ‘platform’ from which to launch military operations against Iran, than an Iraq which has been pacified. There seems to be a real debate taking place on exactly that question at the top levels of Pentagon decision making. Soon (early-mid February), it seems that the thesis is going to be tested – that is, put through a trial run – in a broad frontal attack against Syria. If that plays well on Wall Street, then the green light may be given for the punch to Tehran.

[J.H.C]

dialectic,do you really believe that given the logistical strains that the US forces are already under, they will be able to pull off any sort of a serious, geo-politically strategic move agaist either Syria or Iran? Not to mention the morale issues in the troops as it is.

Can't take them out of N.K., can't really get ppl out of German bases either. Draft, well, that may have to wait until after inaguration, but I don't think it will be well recieved in the fatherland.

Call me a conspiracy theory entusiast, but sometime I wonder if europe,china and russia nudged the uni-polar-giant to a trap where they could bleed it before it could do any serious damage to their interests elsewhere. I think these three are big enough markets to sustain each other, if they can break up the pie amicably.

I don't think the russians have forgotten the slow-bleeding-mortal wound they recieved in Afghanistan.

[Greg]

I'm not sure it'd be reasonable to blaim foreign powers for the situation the US has put itself in in Iraq... but I'd definately guess that more than a few of those powers are glad to see us in that mess.

[dialectic]

J.H.C.

You wrote:

“do you really believe that given the logistical strains that the US forces are already under, they will be able to pull off any sort of a serious, geo-politically strategic move against either Syria or Iran? Not to mention the morale issues in the troops as it is.”

Without denying there exists some logistical strain in the US military machine, my view is that an attack against Iran, primarily, constitutes a near-imperative because of geo-economic pressures. The coming attack against Iran will have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with matters like “terrorism,” or “WMD’s,” any more than did the attack against Iraq. Just as, prior to March of 2003, it was known, with virtual certainty, that Saddam had NO ties to international “terrorism” and NO weapons of mass destruction, so also it is currently extremely well understood throughout all of the western intelligence services that Iran, also, has NO ties with international “terrorism,” and also has NO weapons of mass destruction.

But those facts will stop nothing. The invasion against Iran MUST proceed because of the crucial “signal” it will send to the global currency markets. The world economic climate is in a crisis of stasis – in technical terminology, a “valorization crisis” – meaning that all market sectors are fully mature. This is even more the case in capital markets – the buying and selling of money – than in any other. The instigation of turmoil – that is, the invasion and “cracking open” – of the few remaining ‘hermetic’ socio-cultural-economic regions, constitutes the vital opening required for speculative, “hot money” capital to roll in and “re-produce” itself. It’s a “loot-and-grab” world at the highest levels of international capital – it just is, whether we like it or not – and the dominant economic power (the US) has no option but to serve the needs of the major players, lest the globalized capital circuits implode.

By way of example, it is useful to consider such former “happy hunting” episodes as the East Asian Currency Crisis of 1997, and the ongoing, IMF-controlled dept-peonage system that is continually crushing the various countries of South America, Africa, etc. Subjected to ceaseless pressure against their currencies by the private currency trading markets, those countries were forced to open up their money markets and privatize resources in order to service the suddenly crushing debt loads they experienced as a result of the collapse of their monetary systems.

But a problem arose rather quickly. The East Asian economies managed to hold on, albeit with severe and long-lasting damage to their prospects for economic development, and now – though having enormous and long term debt to service – they are largely “stabilized,” as well as relatively insulated from renewed attacks from the currency trading markets. The shock to the world balance-of-payments system was so ghastly back in 1997 that the IMF itself had to agree to allow certain “inoculation programs” to be erected. Also, many of those countries are now somewhat more protected against currency speculation assaults as a result of the growing economic influence of mainland China.

So for a long time “stasis pressures” have been building up in the system of global monetary speculation, and indeed ever since about 1998 the calls for military action in the middle east have risen to a deafening roar. Those calls have directly come from, and been orchestrated by, the world centers of finance capital. The functionaries of capital – media, government – have necessarily had to respond to these pressures. US Vice President Richard Cheney is the crucial figure in the transmission of these calls as they have been realized in US government policy.

What had been done to South America, Africa, etc. is now being done to Iraq, and will be done to Iran. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran have vast resources of a fungible commodity that can be expropriated (Afghanistan’s opium doesn’t count, since it is not truly fungible). That commodity is, of course, oil. But first, they have to be “loaded up” with gigantic levels of debt. Then, they can be en-chained within IMF and World Bank strictures so that they will FOREVER AFTER be paying and paying and paying and paying and paying on their accounts.

But neither Iraq nor Iran would willingly submit to those Wall Street and City of London controlled systems of wealth extraction. So, those societies must first be “cracked open,” and then afterward the new, US installed ‘leaders’ gleefully sign the contracts – that is, take on the titanic debt loads – through which vast new ‘fields of opportunity’ for finance capital speculation are created. Remember, we’re not talking about mere oil, and certainly not about building infrastructure. We’re talking here about the creation of enormous quantities of tradable debt – huge new pools of resource-backed securities – which are the lifeblood of international speculative finance capital. THAT is what the capital markets insist that Washington provide them with, and precisely because the debt-peonage of all the rest of the world has long since become a “done deal,” (i.e.; fully mature), Iraq and Iran represent the only opportunities currently conceivable for truly “new” sources of that lifeblood substance – capital.

And military capability? The US is far from being stretched thin. And even if it were, the military will have to do what it’s told. The severity of the crisis in speculative capital is simply gigantic, and the US military itself has no choice but to perform on its obligations. Interestingly, the primary obligations of the US military are no longer to the Pentagon or the White House, notwithstanding the ostensible “chain-of-command,” but are to the extensive networks of war-material production with which it interfaces. That is, the profitability requirements of the military-industrial complex constitute more immediate relevancies than anything Rumsfeld might decide.

You wrote:

“Draft, well, that may have to wait until after inaguration, but I don't think it will be well recieved in the fatherland.”

What? That’s a joke, right? Outside of a few pinko’s and Quakers, do you seriously believe there will be any substantive opposition to the re-imposition of the draft? Such opposition is now well understood as being overt treason, and the voices of dissent are rapidly fading day-by-day. More and more, the major and second-tier media are simply refusing to publish anything that doesn’t conform with Wall Street dictates. The fanatic christian right has extensive networks of control in place, such that almost all newspapers and tv stations find themselves subjected to severe boycotts if they dare to give dissent a forum. The “fatherland,” as you call it, is entirely pacified, with the few and isolated instances of opposition largely invisible-ized. It no longer matters what the “fatherland” thinks or feels: its role is to shut up and obey, and it will do exactly that.

dialectic

[J.H.C]

dialectic, now I'm completely freaked out! seriously. I think I understand the line of thought you present as far as the need for the action in Syria and Iran, but how exactly this will translate into actual action, I'm not sure, but you have pointed out some good possiblities.

I've wondered about this. I was sure Syria was next 2 months into the occupation. But I do think that this whole iraqi resistance thing has thrown a monkey wrench in the plans.

I think if presented with in the manner that you have, the American ppl will listen to the case and probably go for it. I just can't see the administration going thru another on-and-on-and-on of why they need to invade Iran or Syria. I don't think the US public will respond very well to the bait-n-switch this time around.

I can appreciate the logic behind having the resources to back-up the tradeable debt (I gotta admit, I'm no finance-understanding-guy) but intuition dictates to me that there must be stability. The capital wants to go into Iran, but "not like this". Once the initial phase is over, and the power relationships are re-constituted, capital wants to go to work, doing its speculation or whatever it is that it does in various parts of the world. I'm not sure speculating about the status of its control of the very same resources would be very beneficial. That uncertainty will significantly undermine the value of any so-called "assests" that were teh prize of the invasion.

Not only that, I am willing to bet a one dollar bill that right now the people in Syria and Iran are studying the methods being deployed by the so-called "global-querillas" against the U.S. Army. The way I see it, there are two weak points to the U.S. logistical setup. The supply lines, and the air-force. You can bomb the shit out of people and then scare them into something or other, but if you squander that "state terror capital" and have to go on and on ad-nauseam doing one operation after another, it really undermines your credibility with those fighting against you.

I think the most damaging aspect of the insurgency in Iraq is that the people inside iraq and those outside preparing for the potential (eventual?) assault are growing bolder in terms of what tactics they will use when the time comes. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that these potential target countries had already started distributing ammunition caches and RPG's and SAM's anticipating a distributed war. I think this is the reason Syria wanted these (Igla?) missiles that Israel is all up in arms about. So that gives support to your idea that one of these two may be next. The russians may be testing the exact same theory, by leaking the story and then guaging the reaction.

If they are going to go in during next spring, and they havent' started making the ritual accusations against the next victims (syria/Iran) that Europe et. al. habitually and pathalogically almost always make, I would suspect that they will most certainly have to be rescued by a "fortuitous random event" that will give them the so called license to go ahead.

Another point of concern is that the insurgency in Iraq is essentially probably being controlled by the old Republican-Guard and the Secret Service etc. These very same people had links and information pathways into the Syrian Baath party. I wouldn't be surprised if those pathways have not only stayed active, but become two way conduits of information exchange. Sort of "what works" "what doesn't". So this time, if the US goes into Syria, the state may dissolve itself under and around the invading force and then re-constitute in a distributed fashion. Kinda like Resistance-2.0 all zipped up and ready to install.

talk about open-source.

[haydar]

dialectic,

fascinating stuff. The imperatives driving the need to "crack open" Iran are running into the logistical and strategic challenges involved in doing so. Things are certainly coming to a head. Other forces have been unleashed (as this blog amply demonstrates), and global capital as controlled by western financial centers my not be as invincible as it sees itself. BTW, have you considered starting your own blog?

[dialectic]

J.H.C.:

You wrote:

“I’ve wondered about this. I was sure Syria was next 2 months into the occupation. But I do think that this whole iraqi resistance thing has thrown a monkey wrench in the plans.”

That’s how I see it too, except that I figured the initial “window of opportunity” would have been March or April of 2004. I suspect Syria will still be first to fall before Iran, but only because of military strategic reasons, with a little bit of Israeli interest thrown in to sweeten domestic US (i.e.; right-wing christian) opinion. As is now so clearly understood, the Pentagon war planners did not foresee the nature and extent of Iraqi resistance.

The Israeli interest in an invasion of Syria is obvious, and has been extensively covered in other venues. Control of Syria is crucial for controlling that other great Middle Eastern liquid resource: fresh water. With the Turkish elite rendered completely comprador and avid to cut deals for the trans-shipment of Anatolian water resources, all that remains is securing the canal and pipeline routes. The consensus political view in Tel Aviv is that Israeli Defense Forces will for the foreseeable future monitor – if not directly occupy – soon-to-be-conquered Syria, for the purpose of securing the routes and pumping stations. All that oil in the Northern Iraq – the fields the Kurds are claiming – will provide plenty of power for the great amount of energy needed to ship X millions of acre-feet of water to the Negev every year.

But even so, Syria is peripheral in the large scheme of things. It produces virtually nothing that anyone wants, its importance being nothing more than a function of its geographic location. My reading is that the US military isn’t the least bit worried about any Syrian opposition, or jihadist warriors sneaking across the border into Iraq, or anything like that. Syria is so weak it’s hard calculate its influence on anything. I’m glad for the Syrians that they have their country (so far), but all in all it’s a joke nation. Damascus will fall quite rapidly (10 days?), thereafter devolving to a low grade insurgency/counter-insurgency conflict. The invasion has also been delayed until the Iraqi electoral charade is completed. Whether an on-going “bazaar of violence,” as John Robb has so accurately terms it, can be set up in Syria is a matter I am not qualified to evaluate. Learning more about those questions is exactly why I return to this site on a regular basis.

Syria has almost no importance in the world-financial scheme of things, but Israel is significant for a number of reasons. If an invasion of Syria occurs, it will only be for the purpose of bolstering the latter.

You wrote:

“I can appreciate the logic behind having the resources to back-up the tradeable debt (I gotta admit, I'm no finance-understanding-guy) but intuition dictates to me that there must be stability.”

Ok, here’s where we get into the meat of the matter. For reasons of space and time I shall have to simplify. Also, I doubt if John Robb wants his site hijacked by discussions and analyses which wander too far a-field from the subjects of his primary focus. I am strongly supportive and appreciative of the important work he has done in sharing his expertise, so I’ll try to make sure not to hog space here. Thus, please forgive me for skipping over things lightly.

There are two main circuits of international finance capital. The first is the traditional one we all know so well (classical banking, for example), and it does indeed crave stable investment environments. The personifications of classical capital love to be able to calculate risk, project future profit opportunities, etc. etc.

The second circuit regards stability as anathema. This is the raider mentality. Everything it does is a paper play, by which is meant that fast, ultra short-term speculative capital NEVER invests in means of production (such as factories or infrastructure projects). It always operates in the areas of private, low- or non-regulated exchange (currency trading, international notes, et al).

The traditional, classical sector leads inevitably to conditions of stasis, expressed as over-accumulation of goods and, especially, capital. This can easily be seen everywhere. In autos, steel, computers, everything, there exists excess productive capacity. This is not necessarily excess capacity relative to NEED, either ‘real’ or perceived, but excess relative to profitable return on investment. Conditions of over-accumulation drive down profitability for everyone, and render growth plays problematic. That, in turn, introduces instability (or, better put uncertainty). In short, the drive for stability, in itself, results in dis-equilibrium.

The operatives of speculative capital have understood those tendencies for a long time. And they simply don’t give a damn. They are in it for the fast buck, notwithstanding that they bleat and moan about problems in the world economic system, and find their best opportunities where things are breaking down – i.e.; where central governmental authority is weak. They push to privatize resources and infrastructure, for example, but don’t take ownership (let alone actually run the damn operation) but rather immediately MONITIZE the assumed debt, repackage it, and then sell to out to entities over which they exercise control.

This is what the IMF and World Bank are really about. They re-purchase the monitized debt instruments the raiders have crafted – invariable at a premium, which is by design – and then administer the asset on behalf of the erstwhile ownership class. Having “cracked” a country by speculating against its currency until the target caves in, swooped up all the viable assets, they are then “bailed out” by the two key institutions of the world banking and currency control systems mentioned above. This is the process, in an nutshell, taking place when you read about international “loan guarantees.” Again, the IMF and WB don’t exist to help countries with their financial systems, or to invest in ‘development’ programs, but to indemnify the class of international currency speculators.

You can see where this extremely brief overview fits in to my earlier post. Many countries are inextricably “IN THRALL” to the global capital markets. The debt peonage of those countries is almost entirely ‘mature.’ They will pay and pay on existing accounts (existing debt), and may even take on some extra debt, but not much more. Argentina, Colombia, Indonesia, Thailand, etc. are the typical cases here.

But there is proportionately little extra extraction available in the ‘mature’ debt-colonies. What’s called for are NEW FIELDS whereby the titanic overhang of “hot” speculative capital can be put to work to do its thing. This calls for – screams for, actually – new opportunities of super-expropriation. The early players in new fields are the ones who reap, in general, the mega-super profits. An excellent case study in this regard is the way the assets of the former Soviet Union were looted out and sold off, for kopeks on the ruble (pennies on the dollar). Huge amounts of speculative western capital flooded in, and snatched up valuable assets (unguarded because Yeltsin was, of course, asleep – or drunk – at the switch. Or bought off?).

This is why the world financial system is lusting after, first, Iraq, then Iran. It appears that the Chinese Mandarins are going successfully keep their ship upright (that is, keep the hot money speculators at bay), so the Middle East is the main game in town. As is well known, in four or five years, the center of the international money game will have traveled on to central Asia (Caspian region). So where’s the loot-and-run opportunity? Yep; Persian Gulf.

And the secret of the entire system is that even the ‘sober’ and classical sectors of capital (e.g.; industrial capital) are dependent on periodic and massive infusions of new capital coming in from the activities of the private, finance-buccaneers. The speculators are the ones who do the “cracking,” and are in large part responsible for the pressure put on the major western governments so that their bidding gets done, but a lot of the profits of their activities are cycled through the ‘legitimate’ world banking circuits also. While most of the “cracking” is effected on world currency markets, sometimes the Marine Corps is called in on particularly hard cases (Manuel Noriega in Panama, Saddam in Iraq).

The US government has been ‘captured’ by the operatives and ideologues of speculative finance capital. US Vice President Richard Cheney is the point man in the transmission of their program into government policy. Traditional capital and its interests (i.e.; a stable investment climate) are now held to be retrograde. For the new global elite of wealth, the historical post-WWII monetary system is scornfully derided as obsolete. I’m referring here to the system that operated AFTER the collapse of the Bretton Woods agreement.

Oh heck, this can go on and on. Apologies to all for posting such an elementary overview. I know many of you are already far beyond this level of analysis. The post is already too long, but I haven’t even scratched the surface. I’ve been at the keyboard too much. Apologies also for not having time to polish and focus the theme.

[dialectic]

haydar:

You wrote:

“fascinating stuff. The imperatives driving the need to "crack open" Iran are running into the logistical and strategic challenges involved in doing so. Things are certainly coming to a head. Other forces have been unleashed (as this blog amply demonstrates), and global capital as controlled by western financial centers my not be as invincible as it sees itself.”

Agreed. In the old days we used to call them “contradictions.” Unfortunately, global capital, like the US military, thrives precisely on being resisted, on opposition. Remember the old C.P, quip already from the early 1950’s? : “If the Pentagon (the military-industrial complex) had not had the Soviet Union, it would have had to have invented it.”

So I see it pretty much the same way you do. Capital will not have its way, but also will not be defeated. Thus, the horror will go on and on. As the western operatives of finance capital see it, to be defeated in the imperative Middle Eastern colonization program is tantamount to agreeing to their own abolition. But they will not agree to abolish themselves. There is nothing so vicious as a Randian Objectivist clutching onto its last dime.

Returning to the first point:

In a letter written in 1828 to one of his former junior officers, the great Prussian theorist of war, Karl von Clausewitz, pointed out that the absolute “ . . . worst thing that can happen to a warrior is to have just defeated his last enemy.” Of course, Clausewitz had been in war, and knew that, in fact, the ACTUAL worst thing is to lose. But the point of his letter to his former subordinate was in reference to the social relations, the social position, of the warrior class within any given society. To have defeated all your enemies, right down to the last one, is to render yourself superfluous. More prosaically, promotion up the ranks takes place faster during wartime. For professional soldiers war is not only an opportunity to “hone their (s)kills.” but to make grade at a rate simply not possible during peacetime.

The emergence of what you referred to as “the logistical and strategic challenges involved” serve to energize and ‘excite the manly valor’ of all those involved on the side of capital. Iraq/Iran –that is, the ascending spiral of psychotic horror and devastation of the life-world – is the new and actual face of the future into which we are headed.

You wrote:

“BTW, have you considered starting your own blog?”

Heaven forefend. I spend entirely too much time in front of the computer as it is. If, however, you’re subtly hinting that I’m posting too much here and ought to go play in a sandbox of my own making . . . well, I probably agree with that. Maybe John Robb does too.

[J.H.C]

dialectic, fascinating (and at the same time horrifying) stuff indeed! If you do indeed start a blog (anonymous even?) do keep us in the loop :)

cheers.

F:NS

[J.H.C]

Here is an article by Scott Ritter. He mentions something that John Robb did not elaborate on too much. The galvanization of the sunni insurgency as a response to the "de-bathification" taken up, (and then presumably aborted) by Paul Bremer.

"The Link":http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012405D.shtml