US to Create a Secret Police in Iraq

[Drake Tungsten]

You're all poosies...

[Ramo]

Secret police are distinct from normal police, namely in that they aren't bounded by the civilian justice system. That's why the article is calling them secret police; they can conduct assassinations and the like with impunity.

[Ramo]

Spiff, I agree with you, but please don't jack the thread.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ramo
Spiff, I agree with you, but please don't jack the thread.

Sorry, but I dislike being called an ******* when I'm politely and non-trollingly being skeptical towards the generosity of the US

[Patroklos]

I agree with Spiffor,

However, I think you over simplify. We often make nominal sacrifices to help out allies of long standing. There are alot of economic concerns where we could have screwed the friends out of alot of money and resourses to aggrandize ourselves but haven't. Of course all countries do this and there is an intrinsic value in keeping freinds happy, but I think in some cases we can do things for purely humanitarian or other interests. You just declare that a national interest.

I guess the concept is circular

[Shi Huangdi]

I still say this "Secret Police" talk is hyperbole. Tracking down and fighting an organized armed insurgency is NOT the role of ordinary policeman. You can't treat it like it's petty street crime. An FBI style institution is nessecary for these type of things. And talking about being agressive in going after the insurgency- yes, and I am sure the FBI back in the day would have said it was agressively persuing the Mafia.


"A normal person would understand that everything implemented by the US has only the interests of the US in mind. When it's good for the Iraqi people, more power to them. When it' bad for them, well, that's too bad."

I agree with you Spiffor. However, what you miss is that the US interest and the Iraqi interest in this case are the same. Helping Iraq recover economically is good for us because it will help us win over more Iraqis and make them more likely to be favorable to the US. Defeating these insurgents who are killing so many innocent iraqis in their attacks is becaue a stable Iraq will be better for a democracy and will make us look better. Making Iraq a sucsessful democracy would be good, as that would accomplish the administration's goal of setting up a model of democracy for the Arab world, and would mean a sucsess for the mission and the Bush administration, and would likely hasten troops coming home.

Conversely, it is in the French interest for the rebuilding of Iraq to fail. If Iraq can't recover, if the guerilla war intensifies, and Sunni Arab Nationalists suceed in setting up a new brutal dictatorship, it would prove the anti-war position that France adopted to be correct, and would likely mean the end of the Bush Doctrine(and administration) and the idea of going into countries and forcibly setting up democracies. It would make the US in the future less likely to act unilaterally. And power being a zero-sum game, the weakening of the superpower(US) and a more multilateral system means in increase in international power for the French.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
I agree with you Spiffor. However, what you miss is that the US interest and the Iraqi interest in this case are the same. Helping Iraq recover economically is good for us because it will help us win over more Iraqis and make them more likely to be favorable to the US. Defeating these insurgents who are killing so many innocent iraqis in their attacks is becaue a stable Iraq will be better for a democracy and will make us look better. Making Iraq a sucsessful democracy would be good, as that would accomplish the administration's goal of setting up a model of democracy for the Arab world, and would mean a sucsess for the mission and the Bush administration, and would likely hasten troops coming home.

I am not missing it. As a matter of fact, now that the war has been waged, and now that the bloodbath has been spilled, I hope the Americans will meet their Iraqi objectives as easily as possible, i.e. that the guerillas will demoboilize or be crushed in non-populated areas, that the Iraqi economy will be back on line soon, and that a regime respecting the rule of law will be put into place quickly (I do expect the regime to obey to Washington more than to the Iraqis, but I also expect this regime not to breach human rights, which will be a great improvement over Saddam )

However, I'm also aware that the interests of the US may clash with the interests of the Iraqis. In such a case, the US will look for its interests first, like any other country.
This secret police may very well be an American instrument of control over future's Iraq. Or maybe not. In all cases, I don't think it is a good omen to implement a discretionary police under American watch as you try to set up a regime respecting the rule of law.

[Patroklos]

I wouldn't say the French want us to fail. They do have a benefit if we do, which would be them looking less politically marginalized worldwide by having proven the superpower wrong (I honestly believe the French are bitter at not bieng one themselves anymore, and take the opposite veiw of the US and other countries sometimes just to be different)

Eddie Izarrd said it best.
Europe - "All of Europe, we are going to do this...
France - "Well......we're not gonna. We are going to eat this sandwinch.

I guess you would have to be there. Anyways, whatever nominal political prestige points they would get would be counter acted by a collapsing Arab world. France is not loved by terrorists either and have had their fair share of blows exchanged.

Frech authorities know Iraq needed dealing with but why do it themselves when we would do it anyways. In the end, we will succeed and France can still say they stood up to us and basque in any benefits from a newly structured Iraq.

In the worst senario people will still regard the French, as well, French. Status quo, and I honestly don't think they care anyways.

[Ramo]

I still say this "Secret Police" talk is hyperbole. Tracking down and fighting an organized armed insurgency is NOT the role of ordinary policeman. You can't treat it like it's petty street crime.

It's not simply counter-insurgency. These militias have started a wave of assassinations, which are substitutes for trials and the rule of law. It isn't hyperbolic to call it a secret police. Alawi, the CIA favorite in the governing council, has been calling for a secret police. And this sure looks like one.

As for whether this is needed, I sure don't think so. It's a recipe for ethnic and religious strife and isolating the Sunnis further into resisting the new Iraqi state.

And talking about being agressive in going after the insurgency- yes, and I am sure the FBI back in the day would have said it was agressively persuing the Mafia.

The phrase was "ruthlessly," not agressively. They have very different connotations.

[Patroklos]

I am sure the FBI would have "ruthlessly" attacked the mafia too. Alot of people when trying to make something sound badass, use impressive words. Hell ruthess lawenforcment in America is attacking a 300 pound raging phycotic hyped on crystal meth with a night stick .They actually called that facist. It is all relative.

In Iraq, I want ruthless (the real kind).

[Ramo]

Maybe, but other evidence doesn't point that way.

What makes the militias better for "counter-insurgency" than any other kind of soldier/policeman? The differences I can see are their authonomy and the penchant for extra-judicial killings. And that spells secret police to me. Besides, that's exactly what the CIA wants (look at what Alawi's advocating).

[Patroklos]

I thought I was the only one that got the CSPAN channel with the secret CIA stategy breifings.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Take the Badr Corps, for instance. This militia is lead by real nutjob Ayatollah named Hakim. These forces been extremely friendly with conservative elements in Iran, and in fact has been trained there, and has a history of being extremely violent since the occupation started - including against American forces.

1. Hakim is no nut job.
2, Theyve been more independent of Iran since theyve gained a powerbase inside Iraq, which makes sense when you think about it.
3. They do not have a history of extreme violence since the occupation started.

Hakim and SCIRI are important force among the Iraqi Shia, and are important on the Iraqi Governing Council. The attempt to marginalize them only serves the interests of the Baathists.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Ramo, the Telegraph and the CSM are of the same family. Marginalized rumor factories and spin doctors.

You are, as usual, FoS. The Christian Science Monitor is one of the most highly respected papers in the country. In the U.S., it is probably the least partisan paper. In fact, you are the only person I've ever heard denigrate the paper.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
You're implying a secret police is going to abuse its power.

Name one secret police agency in the world which hasn't abused it's ower. I triple-dog-dare you.