From Saudi Arabia's first English-language daily:
Posted by DeLong at March 27, 2003 06:24 PM | TrackBackArabNews: Exclusive: "As Long as It Takes": On the road from Umm Qasr to Basra are the burned out shells of what used to be Iraqi anti-aircraft guns. There are various army camps, one occupied by Iraqi troops. A poster of a smiling Saddam welcomes you to Basra. Other posters have had the face of Saddam shot off, and some have been pasted over.
Among the burned out Iraqi tanks are three burned out coalition forces tanks, demonstrating that the US/UK forces did lose some personnel and equipment.
Arab News asked several of the refugees waiting to enter Basra what they thought of regime change. Accompanying Arab News were several international TV crews. What the refugees said on and off camera were very different things.
On camera, the general feeling among the crowd was sorrow at losing Saddam. Off camera, the citizens of Umm Qasr and Basra appeared genuinely exhilarated at the prospect of a brighter future, after Saddam had been removed...
Couldn't we stop for a moment and try to figure out what we're doing?
Posted by: bad Jim on March 27, 2003 11:08 PMHans Blix, in a Guardian article, delivers a couplet reminscent of William Blake:
The noble art of losing face
will one day save the human race
>the citizens of Umm Qasr and Basra appeared genuinely exhilarated at the prospect of a brighter future, after Saddam had been removed...
Sure, by many accounts the Saddam regime is a vile tyranny but the question is whether American and British forces now going to take Baghdad fighting street by street or take the easy way and bomb the city into ruins first?
Posted by: Bob Briant on March 28, 2003 05:27 AMAha. The Umm Qasr civilians are hedging their bets -- if the US abandons them, as they did in the last war, they don't want Saddam's secret police to confront them with videotapes of themselves welcoming the foreigners in.
Posted by: Seth Gordon on March 28, 2003 06:16 AMAll the War Crime News that's fit to print:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1085433,00.html
--------quote---------
Thousands of civilians fleeing Basra are reported to have been fired on by Iraqi forces inside the city.
Sky News correspondent Emma Hurd says between 1,000 and 2,000 people were heading out of the south west of the city, toward the Coalition's 7th Armoured Brigade.
"They had to cross a bridge and once they got there it seems that forces inside the city - members of the irregular forces, the Fedayeen - opened fire.
"The people then ran back into the city. It's quite a disturbing picture," said Hurd.
Paramilitaries
UK forces spokesman Group Captain Al Lockwood told Sky News: "Paramilitaries followed the civilians out of the city and fired.
"Members of the Black watch saw this and placed themselves between the two sides and opened fire (on the paramilitaries).
"We don't yet have reports on civilian casualties."
Sky's Jeremy Thompson, who is with 7th Armoured Brigade troops, said instances of civilians fleeing the city appear to be growing.
Shielded
"People are trying to come out, looking for water and food. The problem for the British is that the paramilitaries are effectively being shielded by the civilians in front of them.
-----------endquote--------
The citizens of Um Qasr may not want to be recorded at all, as there's no certainty as to exactly who the future ruler of Iraq will be, or how long a memory they may have about current events. Or access to video news reports.
I expect the reception for the U.S. in Baghdad won't be any big celebration either, when it finally comes.
Posted by: David Wilford on March 28, 2003 07:07 AMThe thing that has surprised me most in this war is the lukewarm reception of the coalition forces by Iraqi's. Many coalition officials hint that this may have to do with their fear for retribution by Saddam's forces. But why then are thousands of Iraqi exiles in Jordan and Syria returning to Iraq, willing to fight the American and British troops ? The Iraqi's seem to be very ambivalent about the "liberation" of Iraq by the Americans and British and that does not bode well for winning the peace in a post-Saddam Iraq.
Posted by: Nescio on March 28, 2003 07:24 AMIt's so nice to finally hear Iraqi people saying they want to get rid of Saddam - it had almost looked as if that part of the war rationale had also been wrong. So now we also need to hear that they're happy about being invaded and we're all set. What a wonderful world it'll be. (Sarcasm intended)
Posted by: JMC on March 28, 2003 07:46 AMWait a few days as Umm Qasr is secured and the residents have a chance to come to terms with the end of 25 years of totalitarianism. It's not like these things happen over night.
In order to see cheering throngs in the streets, the residents of these cities have to beleive that Saddam cannot reach them now or ever. As long as he is on TV or Radio, they will have fear. As long as his secret police remain in the city (as in Basra) they will be in fear. I expect we will see attempted assassinations by the Fedayeen or security services of whoever steps forward to lead the Shia community in cooperation with the British.
At root, this is a psychological question: they have to trust that we can protect them and defeat Saddam. And that is in turn based on a perception of our strength and determination. Getting UN support and another 100 K troops on the ground at the start of the war would have been a big help.
Posted by: Ethan on March 28, 2003 08:21 AM"Sure, by many accounts the Saddam regime is a vile tyranny but the question is whether American and British forces now going to take Baghdad fighting street by street or take the easy way and bomb the city into ruins first?"
I don't think they should do either. The U.S. and Britain should pay the soldiers in the Republican Guard to kill their top officers, and give up their weapons.
For example, "We will pay every soldier in the Medina Division of the Republican Guard $40,000 if they kill every officer of the rank of colonel and above."
Or, "we will pay every Republican Guard soldier $4000 if Baghdad is captured with fewer than 200 civilian casualties, or $2000 if fewer than 500 casualties, and no money if over 500 civilian casualties."
It's stupid for two of the richest countries not to use that wealth to overthrow an unelected, brutal tyrant.
US agents have been phoning and emailing Iraqi military officers for weeks, so Mark Bahner's plan may already be in effect.
A problem is that you have to be alive to collect a reward. Saddam's library of books on Josef Stalin is not a wall decoration. He has read them carefully.
*For what it's worth*, it's not the only take on Umm Qasr that you will read from ArabNews.com:
"Armies have fought bitterly over strategic positions or towns. The first such location in this war was Umm Qasr. The Americans would not have us believe that they want this town because it is the only port of Iraq; rather, they want it so they can bring in “humanitarian” aid. Basically, they want to bribe the populace while they besiege Basra, a city of a million people, at the time of writing without electricity or water."
http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=24368
"A problem is that you have to be alive to collect a reward."
I couldn't aggree more with this. How about letting NGO's do their work? (Not that one would want to overemphasize concern for the Iraqi people, of course...)
Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on March 28, 2003 10:50 AM"US agents have been phoning and emailing Iraqi military officers for weeks, so Mark Bahner's plan may already be in effect."
No, I'm not talking about anything covert. I'm talking about a *very* public offer, backed up by very big bucks. Well, chickenfeed in war terms, but like a $3 billion, or $5 billion, or whatever, reward.
It's crazy to have to have the U.S. military take Baghdad by force. The U.S./British governments should be able to come up with something to make sure that isn't necessary. But I'm not thinking of covert stuff.
In fact, the U.S. government could offer $10 billion ($2000 for every resident of Baghdad) for taking Baghdad with no coalition casualties. And then the U.S. could GET some of that $10 billion from funds Saddam has stashed overseas, after he's gone.
War simply shouldn't be necessary, when the dictator in power doesn't even represent a majority of the population of a country, and when the country is very poor and not very populous (I'm considering 25 million "not very populous.")
Posted by: Mark Bahner on March 28, 2003 11:09 AM"A problem is that you have to be alive to collect a reward."
But that's the key. Saddam is only one man. And let's say he has 5000 fanatical supporters inside Baghdad. That still means the roughly 5,000,000 poeple inside Baghdad outnumber the fanatics 1000 to one.
Dictatorships--especially by a brutal minority--are uniquely susceptable to coups by The People.
It's foolish to invade Baghdad. We should pay the people inside it to overthrow Saddam. Alternatively, offer a $2 billion reward, to be split among up to 10,000 people, for information on the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein and his sons.
Stalin was different from Saddam Hussein. Stalin headed a country that was on a par, economically and demographically, with other countries in the world. Saddam is the dictator of a relatively poor, relatively unpopulated country. It shouldn't be necessary to have many people killed in order to depose him.
Posted by: Mark Bahner on March 28, 2003 11:28 AMMark, you've convinced me. Let's take a break and see if we can reason with some of the military. The idea of taking Baghdad house by house is most unappealing.
Posted by: Joe Willingham on March 28, 2003 11:39 AM"Aha. The Umm Qasr civilians are hedging their bets -- if the US abandons them, as they did in the last war, they don't want Saddam's secret police to confront them with videotapes of themselves welcoming the foreigners in."
That's also why the U.S. should be employing up to 100,000 Iraqi civilians, at $20 a day (good money to Iraqis) to help the U.S. troops. Employ them to make sure that there isn't this rioting for food and water. Employ them to identify people who need medical attention.
Of *course* the Iraqis don't welcome the U.S. and British troops, if the Iraqis get nothing from it. (And may suffer for it, later.) We need to use simple economics to liberate Iraq.
Posted by: Mark Bahner on March 28, 2003 11:41 AM"Let's take a break and see if we can reason with some of the military."
I'm posting here because I'm relying on Brad's old contacts in the government. ;-)
"The idea of taking Baghdad house by house is most unappealing."
Yes, it's more than that. It's totally insane. It's one thing to "take" a city when the entire population of the city opposes you (as perhaps in Kandahar).
The population of Baghdad has ALREADY shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they are not opposed to the U.S. and Britain taking out Saddam Hussein. In all the demonstrating in Syria and Lebanon and Eygpt against the bombing of Baghdad...I haven't seen even ONE demonstration inside Baghdad itself! (Though perhaps there was one related to the recent civilian deaths from the Iraqi or U.S. missile.)
That shows that the overwhelming majority of people of Baghdad simply want to avoid dying. They don't care if we take out Saddam Hussein. In fact, they'd HELP us to do it, if we'd give them some incentive.
As I've written, it really bugs me that economics isn't being considered in figuring out how to get rid of Saddam Hussein. We're spending money on foolish things (i.e., paying U.S. and British soldiers, but not Iraqi soldiers or civilians). And we're wasting U.S. and British soldier's lives, and sometimes needlessly killing Iraqi soldiers that are simply caught in a bad situation. (I don't doubt that there are fanatical Iraqi soldiers, and it's fine to kill those. But I find it hard to believe that the majority aren't simply doing their job...potentially out of fear for their families.)
Posted by: Mark Bahner on March 28, 2003 12:00 PMThis is really simplistic nonsense; I'm surprised it's seriously being floated here. It's the same kind of simplistic thinking that assumed the Iraqis would surrender en masse and welcome the liberators with flowers.
News flash: there already is a multi-billion dollar reward for killing Saddam. Has been for 25 years: it's called "control of a rich oil producing country". Ask the Angolans, Nigerians, Sudanese, heck ask the Liberians, how tempting the prospect of personally controlling billions of dollars worth of natural resources is to your average wannabe coup d'étatist?
Then ask yourself why Saddam hasn't been taken out in 25 years, despite such temptation, and ask yourself what the chances of success would now?
Posted by: StrontiumDog on March 28, 2003 12:41 PMBy the way - A number of British reports on the war appear shaky at best - from the hoped for rising in Basra to tanks running south. Is this dis-information?
Posted by: aj on March 28, 2003 01:21 PM"This is really simplistic nonsense; I'm surprised it's seriously being floated here."
I *never* write "simplistic nonsense." What I write may not work, but it isn't "nonsense"...let alone "simplistic nonsense."
"News flash: there already is a multi-billion dollar reward for killing Saddam. Has been for 25 years: it's called "control of a rich oil producing country."
News flash: That's complete BS. There's a huge difference between collecting a multi-million dollar reward (plus asylum for one's family, if desired) for pointing out where Saddam Hussein is, so he can be killed, versus actually taking over a country.
ANYONE who has contact with Saddam Hussein and his generals can "finger" them for being killed (by U.S. forces, if necessary). ANYONE can't run Iraq.
"Then ask yourself why Saddam hasn't been taken out in 25 years, despite such temptation, and ask yourself what the chances of success would now?"
Saddam Hussein hasn't been taken out for 25 years, because the U.S. government never previously made up its mind that he *should* be taken out. (Hopefully, now they have.)
The idea of paying Saddam's armed forces to overthrow him is certainly NO more "nonsense" or "simplistic" than U.S. forces overthrowing him, after street-by-street fighting in Baghdad.
Saddam Hussein--as with any unelected minority dictator, in a poor country--should be very susceptible to being overthrown for money. It's common sense, not nonsense.
Posted by: Mark Bahner on March 28, 2003 01:35 PMKill Sadaam for money? Sounds stupid.
Charles Barkely the "round mound of rebound" had a better idea on his NBA show. Why didn't Dan Rather shoot the bastard when he had the chance, or maybe a suicide bomb. It would have saved a lot of lives.
Seriously. I'm sure our reported negotiations with the leaders of the Republican Guard included offers of money, as well as threats of death.
Why is it that Americans think everybody is as shallow and driven by money as we are. Maybe the Republican Guards actually believe in something and are willing to die for it. Unless you are saying that you would kill your own leader for money. Is this a case of projection?
I bet there is a game theory model in there somewhere. How does the U.S.you signal that it will pay off? How will the republican guard leaders bargain among themselves?
Journalists taking out their interview subjects? Nice try. Unfortunately, ever since the case of Ahmad Shah Massoud in Afghanistan (who was blown up by Talibans disguised as reporters), interviewers will be lucky if they get to wear any clothes at all when interviewing the likes of Saddam Hussein.
Also, there is the unfortunate matter of blowback. Do we really want to be seen as adopting the tactics of the Taliban? Especially if we take out leaders whom we may not be formally at war? Not the kind of moral leadership that the U.S. may be trying to project.
Posted by: andres on March 28, 2003 02:29 PM"Kill Sadaam for money? Sounds stupid."
Only if you haven't thought about it for very long.
Here are the options:
1) Go into Baghdad, guns blazing, and kill everyone whoever fires at us, and EVENTUALLY (maybe!) find Saddam Hussein, or
2) PAY the troops and citizens in Baghdad to find Saddam Hussein, so we can kill him.
Now, which is the better option? The answer is obvious: #2 is a MUCH better option!
"Charles Barkely the "round mound of rebound" had a better idea on his NBA show. Why didn't Dan Rather shoot the bastard when he had the chance, or maybe a suicide bomb. It would have saved a lot of lives."
Charles Barkley is showing common sense...but Dan Rather had *no economic incentive* to kill Saddam Hussein. Dan Rather makes millions every year just by being a talking head, in essentially no danger. He's not going to risk his lif (give up, really, since it would be a suicide mission) just to kill Saddam Hussein.
Contrast that with people in Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard. A VERY well paid officer might make $30,000 a year. I'm talking about a reward of essentially 30 YEARS of pay ($1 million), plus asylum in the U.S. for the officers and their families.
"Seriously."
I'm serious!!!
"I'm sure our reported negotiations with the leaders of the Republican Guard included offers of money, as well as threats of death."
Yes, but our negotiations are secret negotiations, with just a few people. I'm talking about a very PUBLIC offer, made to ANYONE:
"We will pay up to $500,000, plus give asylum in the United States, for up to 2000 Iraqi soldiers or officers, of the rank of colonel or less, to kill your generals and Saddam Hussein."
"Why is it that Americans think everybody is as shallow and driven by money as we are."
This isn't about "shallow!" Suppose you're a Iraqi soldier or officer, up to the rank of colonel. You know Saddam and his generals are monsters...but you'd be pretty stupid to give up your life, on the off chance of killing them, for no gain. You've got a wife and kids! You want to live!
HOWEVER...if you had the chance to get more money than you could make in your entire lifetime, and live where there would be little or no threat to you...wouldn't you think much harder about doing "the right thing?"
"I bet there is a game theory model in there somewhere."
Yes!!!! Exactly! Brad DeLong and his economist friends need to get to work on this right now!!! :-)
How much money do you pay? Who do you pay (e.g. officers, or enlisted men, or civilians...members of the government, or not)?
"How does the U.S.you signal that it will pay off?"
The U.S. signals it will pay off by the President announcing the offer on national TV, while his hand is on a Bible. (Just kidding!)
"How will the republican guard leaders bargain among themselves?"
Yes! That's the interesting part! Who do you pay, and what does that encourage them to do? The questions would be, who should be paid to get the best effect, in the least amount of time (or for less money than it will cost to take Baghdad by force).
We need to use economics!
Posted by: Mark Bahner on March 28, 2003 02:35 PMThe libertarian bribery panacea has been getting a lot of play here. As I mentioned lesewhere, it's not like bribing third-worlders to kill other third-worlders hasn't been tried before. And by and large, it has had the effect of replacing one Saddam with a new, improved Saddam. And yes, Saddam has been our client at least twice.
An issue that came up in the negotiations with Turkey, and also with regard to the Shias, is that the United Staes is not, because of recent track record, trusted there. After the first Gulf War Turkey did not receive money it was promised, and Shias we encouraged to revolt were killed by Saddam while we sat and watched. So we might just as well offer the anti-Saddam conspirators a hundred trillion dollars and every whore in Hollywood, because whatever the offer is, they're not going to believe it.
Posted by: zizka on March 28, 2003 03:55 PMThere have been several rebellions and attempted coups against Saddam in the past, some of which have come from within the Republican Guard. It wouldn't surprise me to see it happen again when circumstances are ripe.
I think the motive would more likely be a combination of patriotism and a desire to survive rather than monetary.
"The libertarian bribery panacea has been getting a lot of play here."
And the inane leftist criticisms are getting equally big play. It's not bribery, to pay a person to do a good thing. It's capitalism...which is probably why it disgusts you so.
"As I mentioned lesewhere, it's not like bribing third-worlders to kill other third-worlders hasn't been tried before."
And as I replied, I challenge you to name any other example where a country that is at war with another third-world country has paid the third-world country's military to kill their leaders.
More importantly, I absolutely challenge you to propose your *own* solution.
"There have been several rebellions and attempted coups against Saddam in the past, some of which have come from within the Republican Guard. It wouldn't surprise me to see it happen again when circumstances are ripe."
The circumstances would be much more ripe if President Bush would publicly offer up to $10 billion, payable to up to 100,000 members of the Republican Guard, to kill Saddam and their generals. (Or just imprison them all...if there is some sort of concern about killing Saddam Hussein.)
Fine. We paid Noriega to do the right thing. We paid Saddam to do the right thing. We paid Mobutu to do the right thing. This isn't new. Look what we got.
Yes, if the only goal was to get Saddam out of there, that might work. The goal here is replacing Saddam's government with a better government. Not just a different government. And not the same government with a new guy at the top.
I'm completely confident that this option is being used. Maybe it will work. I don't even say that it shouldn't be done. But you make it seem that this is a brilliant new idea you came up with which will change everything by applying market principles to war for the first time ever, when actually its the same old shit.
Posted by: zizka on March 28, 2003 10:28 PMFine. We paid Noriega to do the right thing. We paid Saddam to do the right thing. We paid Mobutu to do the right thing. This isn't new. Look what we got.
Yes, if the only goal was to get Saddam out of there, that might work. The goal here is replacing Saddam's government with a better government. Not just a different government. And not the same government with a new guy at the top.
I'm completely confident that this option is being used. Maybe it will work. I don't even say that it shouldn't be done. But you make it seem that this is a brilliant new idea you came up with which will change everything by applying market principles to war for the first time ever, when actually its the same old shit.
Posted by: zizka on March 28, 2003 10:30 PMMark -
You're so taken in by your idea that you're not thinking critically. There is no difference whatsoever between killing Saddam for a US-offered bounty, and killing him in order to become top dog in a coup d'état.
Killing Saddam alone would mean that the assassin and his family would be a billion dollars richer, living in Bermuda, and the president of Iraq would be called Qusay.
You'd have to take out the hard core of Saddams'government, and the most important leadership figures in the Ba'ath part. You'd have to make sure that only the top men are taken out, not the rank-and-file Ba'athists, otherwise they'd quickly figure out that if they do nothing, they're next aganst the wall. And there are a million of them. You'd have to organize this more or less simultaeneously, lest the targets realize what is happening and get the chance to offer more immediate and more pressing counter-inducements.
Where I come from, and I assure you that I have experienced it from close by four or five times, we call pulling this kind of manoeuvre off, a "coup".
Posted by: StrontiumDog on March 29, 2003 01:00 AM"Yes, if the only goal was to get Saddam out of there, that might work. The goal here is replacing Saddam's government with a better government. Not just a different government. And not the same government with a new guy at the top."
Nice sentiments, ziska, but the real goal here is replacing Saddam Hussein with a government that is favorable to the interests of the Bush administration (which is why they're currently opposing strongly any UN role in the occupation other than humanitarian aid), not necessarily one that is democratic (in fact, given the culture of the various ethnic groups in Iraq, the government that the Bush adm. finds the most comfortable probably won't be one that has any real power on its own).
But you're probably right in that this is the reason why the Bush adm. probably wants nothing to do with any proposals similar to Mark's nut-case project of paying some foolish Iraqui to turn Saddam Hussein into a martyr (among other undesirable side effects).
Posted by: andres on March 29, 2003 10:44 AMAndres -- I was arguing in terms of what I thought Mark's fantasy was, rather than in terms of Bush's actual goals. Your point is good.
Posted by: zizka on March 29, 2003 03:34 PM