Good morning.  Yesterday's Democracy Now! reminded us that in the 1980's 
the U.S. denied creating death squads in Central America who, in turn, had

copied activities in Vietnam which assassinated tens, if not hundreds of 

thousands of people.  Those targetted in both areas were primarily not

guerillas, whose success depended on concealing their activities, but mainly

the educated, labor and human rights organizers, professionals, relatives and 

friends of underground suspects and ultimately anyone who did not prove 

themselves firm-enough supporters of the regime.

All this activity internationally illegal since WWI and now, the Geneva accords.

It was all denied again and again, by US administrations and military in both 

campaigns, stretching three decades, to congress, the media, the public and

all international fora.  And now, tacitly admitted, actually promoted by use of

the name itself.  What it did in Vietnam and then in Central America was 

eliminate the very people who could have reconstructed the society after the 

wars and leave them devastated - in Vietnam, for thirty years and counting.

Woe betide poor Iraq, if we can't stop it.




Last night, the Critics' Choice Awards gave 'Fahrenheit 9/11' top prize for

documentary -- so much for snobs and ultra's who have been poo-poohing 

the quality of the film - a clean sweep so far of the major awards. The LA

Times may mention this one, as they did not the People's Choice award!

Ed



Newsweek

The Salvador Option'
The Pentagon may put Special-Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in 
Iraq
WEB EXCLUSIVE

By Michael Hirsh and John Barry

Updated: 5:27 p.m. ET Jan. 10, 2005


Jan. 8 - 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. 
"What everyone agrees is that we can't just go on as we are," one senior 
military officer told NEWSWEEK. "We have to find a way to take the offensive 
against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing." 
Last November's operation in Fallujah, most analysts agree, succeeded less in 
breaking "the back" of the insurgency-as Marine Gen. John Sattler 
optimistically declared at the time-than in spreading it out.

Now, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that 
dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration's battle 
against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. 
Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government 
funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called 
death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. 
Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the 
policy to have been a success-despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the 
subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal. (Among the current 
administration officials who dealt with Central America back then is John 
Negroponte, who is today the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Under Reagan, he was 
ambassador to Honduras. There is no evidence, however, that Negroponte knew 
anything about the Salvadoran death squads or the Iran-Contra scandal at the 
time. The Iraq ambassador, in a phone call to NEWSWEEK on Jan. 10, said he was 
not involved in military strategy in Iraq. He called the insertion of his name 
into this report "utterly gratuitous.")

Following that model, one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to 
advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked 
Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents 
and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria, according to 
military insiders familiar with the discussions. 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. Rumsfeld's 
Pentagon has aggressively sought to build up its own intelligence-gathering and 
clandestine capability with an operation run by Defense Undersecretary Stephen 
Cambone. But since the Abu Ghraib interrogations scandal, some military 
officials are ultra-wary of any operations that could run afoul of the ethics 
codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That, they argue, is the 
reason why such covert operations have always been run by the CIA and 
authorized by a special presidential finding. (In "covert" activity, U.S. 
personnel operate under cover and the U.S. government will not confirm that it 
instigated or ordered them into action if they are captured or killed.)

Meanwhile, intensive discussions are taking place inside the Senate 
Intelligence Committee over the Defense department's efforts to expand the 
involvement of U.S. Special Forces personnel in intelligence-gathering 
missions. Historically, Special Forces' intelligence gathering has been limited 
to objectives directly related to upcoming military operations-"preparation of 
the battlefield," in military lingo. But, according to intelligence and defense 
officials, some Pentagon civilians for years have sought to expand the use of 
Special Forces for other intelligence missions.

Pentagon civilians and some Special Forces personnel believe CIA civilian 
managers have traditionally been too conservative in planning and executing the 
kind of undercover missions that Special Forces soldiers believe they can 
effectively conduct. CIA traditionalists are believed to be adamantly opposed 
to ceding any authority to the Pentagon. Until now, Pentagon proposals for a 
capability to send soldiers out on intelligence missions without direct CIA 
approval or participation have been shot down. But counter-terrorist strike 
squads, even operating covertly, could be deemed to fall within the Defense 
department's orbit.

The interim government of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is said to be among the 
most forthright proponents of the Salvador option. Maj. Gen.Muhammad Abdallah 
al-Shahwani, director of Iraq's National Intelligence Service, may have been 
laying the groundwork for the idea with a series of interviews during the past 
ten days. Shahwani told the London-based Arabic daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat that 
the insurgent leadership-he named three former senior figures in the Saddam 
regime, including Saddam Hussein's half-brother-were essentially safe across 
the border in a Syrian sanctuary. "We are certain that they are in Syria and 
move easily between Syrian and Iraqi territories," he said, adding that efforts 
to extradite them "have not borne fruit so far."

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.
"
Pentagon sources emphasize there has been no decision yet to launch the 
Salvador option. Last week, Rumsfeld decided to send a retired four-star 
general, Gary Luck, to Iraq on an open-ended mission to review the entire 
military strategy there. But with the U.S. Army strained to the breaking point, 
military strategists note that a dramatic new approach might be needed-perhaps 
one as potentially explosive as the Salvador option.

With Mark HosenballEDITOR'S NOTE: This report, initially published on Jan. 8, 
was updated on Jan. 10 to include Negroponte's comments to NEWSWEEK

� 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

URL: '+url+'
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources 
often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/5F6XtA/.WnJAA/E2hLAA/7gSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to