Disarmament
When the rich make war, it's the poor that die.
--Jean Paul Sartre
--Jean Paul Sartre
The U.S. 2nd Amendment is commonly interpreted as allowing for the citizens to bear arms. GHW Bush delimited that previously unqualified right in the late1980's when he instituted an assault rifle ban via Executive fiat. This is not to argue for the sagacity of allowing a citizenry to arm themselves with AK-47's, but later, I will explain why I mention this.
For now, fast forward to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, when GWB has ascended to the throne. After the defeat of evil-boy Saddam and the royal proclamation of "mission accomplished," what's the first thing the military was ordered to do?
Well, not what it should have done after invading and defeating a foreign power, namely, disarming the crazy bastards, like we did in Germany and Japan. Immediately upon occupation, Germans were required to turn in every firearm in their possession, including hunting rifles. The Japanese were disarmed in a like manner. This firearms seizure is a population and resource control measure that is the foundation of all counter-insurgency or occupation force policy.
Why weren't the Iraqis stripped of their firearms? Now the game is out of control and U.S. military personnel are being killed with weapons permitted by U.S. policy. Seems like a no-brainer to me (and isn't it just appropriate that Mr. Cheney, President of Vice, to use a Borat-ism, will forever be associated with this term?)
So back to my initial observation: How ironic that in America, we cannot own automatic AK 47's, while Iraqis, who are killing and wounding our service people with weapons daily, are allowed to own them with impunity. The first obvious initial course of action in securing Iraq should have been disarming the entire population, and not just of automatic weapons.
Does anybody in command have a clue?
As a post script, several readers have asked what I might suggest could have been done to secure the weapons in Iraq. Well, now that the horse is out of the stall, it will take some clever finagling to bring him back. Maybe a gun "buyback" program, which has met with such stellar success in our own inner cities...
posted by rangeragainstwar at 10:23 PM
25 Comments:
I surely have not seen any signs of a clue. Your post makes way too much sense. Sadly, I don't think they have had a clue from the very beginning. Reading "Fiasco" tells you this thing was a mess way back when.
By the way, I found your blog due to the link at Informed Comment.
Amen! What's worse, with the extremely high unemployment rate there, we are focusing on offering jobs to better ARM young men, and train them to be more deadly! How smart is THAT?
Why weren't the Iraqis stripped of their firearms?
i think we all need to come to terms with the possibility that this administration has deliberately set in motion, most of what has transpired. the demanded chaos, and i dont think a magnanimous and peaceful transition of power in iraq would have suited their higher goals.
im not suggesting that the entire previous 3 years has been played to a script, but such infantile 'mistakes' have been made that i cannot beleive they were not deliberate.
1/ Army weapons caches were not guarded (and promptly plundered)
2/ Army disbanded, but not disarmed. (en masse)
3/ 150000 iraqi civil servants sacked (en masse)
4/ decree allowing each household to retain arms.
these actions set tone for the years 2003-06.
nice post
The single most effective counter-insurgency measure would be to hire a million unemployed Iraqi males, give them magnetic, chemical, or xray detectors, and send them across Iraq to sweep for weapons and bomb materials. Pay them a bounty for each weapon or lethal item recovered. This would disarm the insurgency at relatively low cost and without need to send GIs or Marines to search and interrogate households. There would be no confusion of "safe houses" with civilian quarters. Strangely, no concept of this sort appears in any proposals. Why? Meanwhile, this week Senators McCain and Lieberman are to bless an AEI plan to send more troops to seize Iraqi neighborhoods and try to secure them 24/7 until the somehow become sanitized. This will be very bloody, cause much confusion, be decried by Iraqis, and fail the instant US forces try to expand the perimeter. Insurgents will slip through the perimeter like water through a sieve.
Request, please: ranger comments on the aei.org proposal by Gen. Keane and F.W. Kagan. AEI has invited only friendly panelists to comment. The outline was unfurled on December 14. AEI published a video and (of course) a Powerpoint. The whole enchilada is to be showcased on January 5.
This plan approximates what Bush will propose in rebuttal to Baker-Hamilton. Any Democrats or GOP on the Hill who stand in the way will be taunted for weakness or treason, so many will support it, whatever their doubts. However, does it really represent the best military wisdom? Is it outright tomfoolery? Or is it, at best, a long-shot wager whose sole guarantee is a prolonged war, whose downside risks are borne by grunts, and whose upside merely buffers and obscures the mistakes of people looking to win election in 2008?
The answer to your last sentence is perfectly obvious to me, and should be to you also sir, neither clues, nor facts, no results have driven Bush's Iraq decision making. Agenda and hubris alone have guided Bush policy.
Regarding your wish to disarm Iraqis post Coalition takeover, this is nothing but a flight of fancy. America never had troop numbers sufficient to disarm the heavily armed Iraq populace. A low troop committment was one of the Administration's selling points right from the start. Realistic troop numbers to take and hold Iraq would have required a Draft.
Realism had and has no place in Bush Iraq policy. I applaud your opposition to what I refer to as
BushWar and invite you and your readers to my blog. Thank you.
http://wisconsin-perspective.blogspot.com/
Iraq, it would seem, is a Libertarian's paradise: Everyone's armed to the teeth, and there's no government to speak of.
Because of the looting and burglary after the invasion, the CPA thought it would be untenable to take away weapons for household protected. Thus, the CPA order allowed the possession of weapons up to the very commonly possessed AK-47.
yes they do.
the plan is 'let's you and him fight' because that means more war and more arms sales and more$$$$$$$$$$$$$profit for the corporations.
they don't give a shit about the people who get killed
their precious offspring will not be there
Yes, every war comes down to the economic, and this is ethnocentrism at its finest, all the way 'round.
"It's easy to be brave when far away from danger"--Aesop.
John Koch,
Your presentation is reasonable, but only if one accepts the validity of the U.S. presence in Iraq to begin with. This is also the linchpin of the Baker-Hamilton ISG.
I maintain this is an unacceptable premise.
Your proposal could work, and is as reasonable as anything offered by this administration. I do not want to see America defeated, but illegal invasions cannot be seen as illustrative of U.S. values. Let the Iraqis solve their own problems, as America has done for several hundred years. As one loyal reader has suggested, Iraq has been there for 6000+ years; they will persist.
I hope to discuss bomb materiel soon, and your comments preempt me!
The two concepts of arms/explosive controls are paramount to success.
Mr. Hayes,
A wonderful summary. Your conclusions are reasonable given the facts as we've seen them. Thank you for participating.
anonymous "Amen!",
We're on the same sheet here, but this point seems lost on the administration. Not only are we arming and training both sides, but we're also funding both sides. [This blog has addressed that point on several occasions.]
Thanks for your pointed and poignant post.
Patricia,
"Fiasco" puts the ball in the military's court, but the military only functions as a part of administration policy. Lacking proper mission statements/orders/and appropriate means to fulfill these requirements, the military operation is doomed to failure.
I put the responsibility onto the marginalization of the State Department function. America cannot count solely on the military option in today's world. Growth, not combat, is the key to the security of the Americas.
John Koch's well-intentioned idea is unworkable in practice because you will not find one million, or even 100,000, young Iraqi males willing to perform such a job for the USA. What would happen is that many would come forward, take the US money, then either disappear or work the system to benefit their own tribal, ethnic, religious or militant group.
Of course full disarmament would have been a sensible idea in the beginning. But I recall much talk about how it would be impossible to separate an Arab from his rifle. There were even comparisons to the gun-loving US cowboy culture. People said, "If we try to disarm them, they will hate us." That sure worked out well, didn't it?
Way back in May 2003 I thought that the Bush Cabal would destabilize Iraq as an excuse to stay on, grab the oil and put down permanent US military bases. It's interesting to see how many others are now coming across to that view.
Joe,
And don't forget, the U.S. taxpayer is footing the bill. Also, don't forget that U.S. policy envisions all Iraqis sharing oil revenue; so in effect, U.S. efforts are recreating a communist ideal.
Lrobby,
Thanks for your comments and solidarity.
"i think we all need to come to terms with the possibility that this administration has deliberately set in motion, most of what has transpired. the demanded chaos, and i dont think a magnanimous and peaceful transition of power in iraq would have suited their higher goals.
im not suggesting that the entire previous 3 years has been played to a script, but such infantile 'mistakes' have been made that i cannot beleive they were not deliberate."
The Balkanization of Iraq
Ethnically Cleansing
AFJ:Blood Borders
The Grand Chessboard
Anon. & Gerard:
See my response which follows the letter below, which was sent to my email address:
The analogy with post-war Germany & Japan has fatal flaws. For one, they were defeated nations, whereas, cities such as Faluja and Ramadi saw no fighting at all. In no sense were they defeated.
The center of gravity was mistakenly seen as the taking of Baghdad - something we could do quickly and with few troops: utterly unlike WWII.
Obviously we did not have the means to collect all arms in Iraq. Unlike Germany ... etc.
Nevertheless, there is a "legal" limit of one AK-47 and 2 rounds of ammo per household -- for self defense.
If you can propose some real world means of disarming the militias and collecting all the loose weapons in Iraq, I'd like to hear about it.
Gerard:
The invasion of Iraq was the defeat of a nation-state. Fallujah and Ramadi were not city-states, independent of Iraqi nationhood. If the nation was defeated, so were the cities. Or is your letter an admission that Iraq was not defeated?
Re. your "center of gravity" comment, "Unlike WWII", indeed! The attack lacked depth and proper follow on combat/CS/CSS support. As an illustration, MP EPW was sorely needed, but these assets were reserve force units.
There must be reality in military planning. "Mistakenly" is a criminal word when used with invasion planning. Battlefields are not like "Lite Beer" commercials. The main attack can be light, nimble and surgical "haul ass and bypass," but follow on forces must eliminate pockets of resistance and hold the shoulders. Otherwise, your forces become similar LTC Custer as Little Big Horn.
When the U.S. attack bogged down on the drive to Baghdad, where were the follow on echelons to exploit initial success? This is a major tactical or strategic void in this "utterly unlike WWII" scenario.
If America were indeed a superpower, then the assets should've been present on the battlefield. If not, then the term "paper tiger" comes to mind.
We obviously did not have assets to collect all arms in Iraq. Therefore, this is extremely poor planning. Facts and assumptions bearing on the problem should be addressed before the mission order is written. To do otherwise is amateur and bravado.
The legal limit you list is probably a typo. Two (2) rounds of ammo per household for self defense is not possibly correct. Possibly, you meant 2-30 round mags, or even maybe 2 basic loads. Whichever, this is an insane policy. Let them have .38's for home protection.
My real world means in Iraq would be to pull the troops out immediately. Any military that requires its soldiers to operate in a hostile environment without the means or will to do the obvious force protection measures is a criminal enterprise.
The military is not a halfway project. You commit assets, or get out.
Let's get out of there ASAP. BSAP will not do.
anonymous,
We acknowledge your comment and have published it, with the links you include, but the position of this blog has always been to avoid advancing any conspiracy theories. However, information is still a free market in America.
Gandhi,
I was remiss when I ans. the initial letter to which you're responding. I did not endorse the suggestion, but mean, only that is as good as anything else coming out of the administration.
Having said that, I know that Iraqis would cachet their weapons, even if we did start to round them up. (As a gun owner, I would do the same.) the time to have done this would have been up front. The U.S. no longer has anything close to initiative in Iraq.
Thanks for your comments,
Jim
Conspiracy theory?
You did not read the links.
Apologies, anon.
Jim was running through email rather quickly tonight, and no doubt confused your links with something else.
He will be back tomorrow and comment after taking a closer look.
Thanks again,
Lisa
Regarding the idea to pay Iraqis to find and turn in weapons, one person objects that "Iraqi males willing to perform such a job for the USA." The proposal requires no love of the USA, just the appetite to earn a bounty: $100 / AK-47, $200 / RPG launcher, etc. This approach is enough to inspire millions of opium and cocaine dealers, so why not offer a similar incentive to garnish arms?
John Koch,
The answer is obvious: if I am one of the resistance members, I will pay them $200 for the rifle. So this will become a market economy for weapons, as the highest bidder will get to take possession of the arm. Really John, we should have just taken the guns.
So your idea works in theory, as long as Uncle Sam's pockets are deep. I can't advocate that as a worthy use of limited resources, so my solution is just to get out.
Let 'em keep all the guns they want. They can pretend they're filming Black Hawk Down, for all I care, provided they're not shooting our troops.
Hi anon,
I just reviewed the four references which you sent. I did not read Zbignew's.
I doubt that Peters speaks for
official U.S. policy, although he was assigned to the D.C. SOPS/intel. Since he retired early, I doubt he's in the inner circle. Further, I could not envision State Dept. and DoD colluding successfully to come up with this theory.
But, there is a circumstantial case for the premise that U.S. policy is trying to establish a new M.E. Ms. Rice's words seem to reflect Peter's theory, but this is way beyond my pay grade, and my focus.
Thanks for bringing it to my attn. Wish I had time to read everything brought to my attn.
Jim
Post a Comment
<< Home