Semi-Daily Journal

How many Americans (now, military, and later, civilians) will die in an attempt to vindicate Rumsfeld's theories?

I was thinking about this yesterday...though I've thought about it, in general, before.

It seems to me like it ought to be very easy for a very rich country--or group of rich countries--to overthrow a brutal dictatorship.

It seems to me that we ought to have military people get together with economists, to figure out the best way to overthrow a regime, by means of its own troops ending it.

Example: Suppose we offer every Iraqi general $20 million, and asylum in the country of their choice, for them and their families, for killing Saddam Hussein.

Or maybe it would be $3 million for every general, and $1 million for every colonel.

There ought to be some way that very rich countries can spend money to overthrow unelected dictatorships. It seems to me even the possibility of that sort of thing happening would make everyone within the regime distrustful of their military.

Dr. DeLong, please have your economist friends get to work on this. :-) The whole invasion route seems incredibly economically inefficient.

Another possibility: Offer all enlisted men and officers BELOW the rank of colonel, in the Medina Division of the Republican guard, $50,000 to kill their generals and colonels. (That's like an entire career's pay to some of those guys.)

Since there are about 10,000 soldiers in that division, we're only talking about $500 million. That's chicken feed to us.

Very interesting little blurb. However, I'm still skeptical that it provides evidence that the war hasn't been prosecuted correctly. Many opportunities would have been missed by waiting, and I'm not sure exactly what the downside of the current situation is.

If we had waited for more troops, we wouldn't have had the chance to take out Saddam & Sons with that preliminary airstrike. Besides, there was -- and still is -- a reasonable chance that the civilians of Iraq would rise up, especially in the South, against Saddam. Why, exactly, wasn't that a chance worth taking?

It hasn't happened immediately, which has left us in the position of chipping away at the cities, establishing forces in the North, and basically mopping up the desert and the countryside. This doesn't seem like the worst possible turn of events. At worst, now, we're forced to wait for more forces before we take the cities. If we had waited for the forces before going in, we would still have had to accomplish what we've accomplished so far -- and pmore, given Saddam's extra preparation time.

Also, it's worth remembering here that nobody heard any liberal politicians, pundits, or armchair generals howling for more forces right before we attacked. Only a few days ago, Josh Marshall pointed to our present "overwhelming force" in the region. It's not fair to only bash those in control for a failure when, if positions had been reversed, your side would have made exactly the same mistake. There's a chance that it's valid to cry "Stupid Rumsfeld!" in this case; but I don't think that can be said without also noting: "Stupid us..."

DBK

It's not "liberal politicians, pundits, or armchair generals" howling for forces now. It's the military, which thinks Rumsfeld is stupid. I agree. I see no reason that this makes me stupid (on this issue) too.

"If we had waited for more troops, we wouldn't have had the chance to take out Saddam & Sons with that preliminary airstrike."

Why not? The start of the war wasn't a surprise to Saddam. Perhaps striking without notice a few weeks earlier could have caught him, but not at the expiration of an ultimatum.

"Besides, there was -- and still is -- a reasonable chance that the civilians of Iraq would rise up, especially in the South, against Saddam. Why, exactly, wasn't that a chance worth taking? "

Because one shouldn't make war assuming a very favorable enemy response.

And that goes twice for Gulf War II, considering that a large number of those who rose up after GW I were left hanging (many, IIRC, literally).

One implication from the war plans of the Mayberry Strangeloves (Cheney, Rummy, Perle, Wolfowitz) is inescapable: they are much more complacent about large numbers of American casualties than the career military people are (more risk-tolerant, they'd probably say).

The largely appropriate objections to DBK's ideas already posted seem enough to do the job, so I won't join in, except to say -- there goes that analysis by label stuff again. It was up to liberals to second guess what was imposed on the military by Bush Administration politicos, without their knowing that it was being imposed? Sounds more like somebody who had an itch to say "liberal" in a sniffy way than a reasoned statement.

So far, we have a "knowledgeable source" at V Corp HQ and General Wallace, both within 8 days of the beginning of the war, saying things ain't right. Now, does anybody know if this is a common pace of second guessing from inside the military? It seems entirely likely that we can prevail even if these criticisms are valid. We just have a whopping advantage. The question is not whether we can win, but rather was rash judgement allowed to prevail? Were US soldiers put in harms way, either through cynicism or arrogance on the part of politicos, when the judgement of generals and going by the book would have meant less risk to those soldiers? I'm not sure that two such criticisms can safely be taken as evidence politicos went off the reservation, 'cause I don't have the record from prior wars, but it is troubling.

I know we are going to win, but I am having trouble understanding why Iraqis are so often fighting. I expected there would be very little resistance. The resistance will be futile, but can so much resistance simply be attributed to the terror of the regime?

The timing of the invasion was largely determined on the front end by the need to allow an opportunity for diplomacy among the UNSC members--very likely at British insistence-to preceed military action. On the back end, there was a legitimate need to get the show on the road before temperatures climbed too high in Iraq; by mid-April, daily highs will approach 100 degrees (not an issue in the Gulf War). People can say what they want about the size of the force, but let's acknowledge some real constraints facing the President and the SecDef.

The economic approach seems interesting. After all, you don't have to pay if it doesn't work.
If this works, I think we can agree that Rumsfeld will have been vindicated, despite the annoyed generals. OTOH, if it doesn't work, I think we can agree that Rumsfeld will have been discredited, one would hope forever, and will have the blood of every soldier lost on his hands. I don't think he'll mind that unduly.
He had credit from Afghanistan. It's hard to call that a victory when Karzai controls, in essence, Kabul, and the opium crop is once again the world #1. There's a gap between a propaganda victory and a victory, and the generals know about that. We can't pull an Afghanistan in Iraq.
Well, of course maybe we can. And I wouldn't put it past this White House.
On al ighter note, I'm thinking iraqbodycount..org may be a US propaganda site. Just don't read it with blind faith.

Good question from K Harris. Here is an article that works as a double-play - it recounts the criticism of the Kosovo campaign (Powell was a critic, as were many others) AND offers cogent criticisms of the Afghanistan campaign, prior to our surprising success.

http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/daalder/20011101.htm

Here is a summary of a book describing the Kosovo campaign, and it certainly gives the sense that not all was well from the outset.

http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/comm/books/0006aDaalder.htm

Here is a link to the Senate report on the "Black Hawk Down" incident. Amusing excerpt first:

"The report was released late Friday in an apparent effort to mute its stinging critique of Clinton administration foreign and military policy."

The Bad News on Friday rule. The report itself came out after the Republicans gained control of the Senate in 1994. Having glanced through it, it seems pretty scathing.

Link: http://216.239.57.100/search?q=cache:EmEZptfKbT0C:www.paulnwhelan.com/files/Senate_Armed_Services_Committee_-_Mogadishu.pdf+somalia+clinton+ac-130&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Now, I suspect, but cannot promise, that criticisms of the Somalia mission were in the air all summer.

Words of wisdom from JFK (NO, not him, the REAL JFK): http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/q110295.html

Anyway, Howard Fineman of Newsweek was on a couple of shows on Thursday making the same point - if we had decapitated the regime and won in the first 72 hours, Rumsfeld and Co. would be geniuses, casualties would have been minimal, and so on.

Things haven't worked out perfectly, and after the fact a different course might have worked better, but, as an unexpectedly cautious friend of mine once observed, hindsight is always 50/50.

Killing Saddam Hussein in that strike would have had essentially nothing to do with Rumsfeld's invasion plans. Consequently, it would not have "made him a genius". I don't believe I can put that any more clearly.
Of course, that wouldn't have stopped the US media (and you, or anyone) from saying it made him a genius.

DBK wrote:

"Also, it's worth remembering here that nobody heard any liberal politicians, pundits, or armchair generals howling for more forces right before we attacked. Only a few days ago, Josh Marshall pointed to our present "overwhelming force" in the region."

On the contrary, Josh Marshall has repeatedly stressed the issue of how the lack of forces entering Iraq from Turkey posed a big problem for the military in terms of having enough force to wage an effective war. I'm sorry, but you don't get to rewrite history as part of making excuses for Rumsfeld.

Well, I'm just paraphrasing Howared Fineman's argument, although he actually said they would be wearing laurels, which he seemed to think would be a good thing.

Now, since decapitation of the leadership and disruption of Iraqi command and control was/is central to the Allied strategy, I am not sure that it is quite correct to say that "Killing Saddam Hussein in that strike would have had essentially nothing to do with Rumsfeld's invasion plans."

"There ought to be some way that very rich countries can spend money to overthrow unelected dictatorships. It seems to me even the possibility of that sort of thing happening would make everyone within the regime distrustful of their military."

Sorry, Mark. If we want to overthrow enemy dictators, we have to get our hands dirty. We've been trying for forty years since the Cuban Missile Crisis to get rid of Castro, but nothing has worked, and we have given plenty of inducements. The problem with overthrowing someone like Castro or Hussein, as opposed to a democratically elected leader like Allende, is that the dictators know they are targets (not just of us, but also of rival domestic political leaders) and so impose draconian internal security measures, with acute paranoia becoming a way of life.

Andres:

"Sorry, Mark. If we want to overthrow enemy dictators, we have to get our hands dirty."

??? You mean, *more* dirty than than fighting street-by-street in Baghdad?

"We've been trying for forty years since the Cuban Missile Crisis to get rid of Castro, but nothing has worked, and we have given plenty of inducements. The problem with overthrowing someone like Castro or Hussein, as opposed to a democratically elected leader like Allende, is that the dictators know they are targets (not just of us, but also of rival domestic political leaders) and so impose draconian internal security measures, with acute paranoia becoming a way of life."

Yes, but:

1) We have never offered anywhere NEAR the type of money I'm talking about (BILLIONS of dollars in total reward money...to up to a MILLION people), and

2) the U.S. army isn't right outside Havana.

I would be very confident that, if the U.S. government offered up to $500,000, plus asylum in the U.S., for up to 1000 Cuban army officers and their families, for the murder of Fidel Castro, Fidel Castro would be murdered. That would be a $500 million total reward. I'm talking about rewards 10 times that much.

DBK - "Also, it's worth remembering here that nobody heard any liberal politicians, pundits, or armchair generals howling for more forces right before we attacked."

This armchair general (OK, I got out as a SPC4 - general might be a stretch) was clammoring for LESS forces, as in just enough to support the UN inspectors.

The problem with having the military kill off Saddam, et al, is that they will then take his plcae. Probably no chance that any one of them would be any better.

Psy-OOPS!

"The problem with having the military kill off Saddam, et al, is that they will then take his plcae. Probably no chance that any one of them would be any better."

That's why we should say that the reward is NOT available to anyone, say, with a rank of general, and is not available for anyone in Saddam's top command.

Make the reward availble only to enlisted men, and officers below colonel in rank.

And, when we come into Baghdad after Saddam Hussein is killed (by his own people, or by us, with their input of where he is), give:

$1000 for every rifle turned in,

$5000 for every mortar turned in,

$50,000 for every rocket propelled grenade turned in,

etc. etc. etc.

PAY the soldiers and people of Baghdad not to shoot at us.

Use economics!

Last night, I started wondering whether Rumsfeld's flawed strategy had any parallels with the Russian experience in Chechnya. What I found disturbed me. Brad (in the event you actually read these comments) and other regulars, I'd like to invite you to take a look... and, I hope, explain to me why I'm wrong.

pfaffenblog

http://pfaff.tcc.virginia.edu

Free-marketeers, explain this - we have had a $25 Million bounty on Osama for quite a while. Why hasn't someone collected, and does this disturb Mark's interesting idea?

"Free-marketeers, explain this - we have had a $25 Million bounty on Osama for quite a while. Why hasn't someone collected, and does this disturb Mark's interesting idea?"

First off, how well is the reward publicized? Most likely Osama bin Laden is either in very rural Afghanistan, or very rural Pakistan. We're probably talking about places were illiteracy runs as high as 50%. And the percentage of people with (satellite) televisions is extremely small.

I'm talking about the President, on world-wide television, speaking to the soldiers and lower officers of the Iraqi army, and possibly the civilians of Baghdad. EVERYONE is going to know about the offer! Plus, these are people who have some concept of what the outside world is like. If you have lived your whole life without ever watching a television, you have no concept what the U.S. is like.

Yes, the $25 million reward for Osama bin Laden hasn't worked. But I'm talking about a MUCH bigger reward, and much better publicized.

And the offer is being made to people who may have cause to personally hate Saddam Hussein...whereas I'll bet most people in rural Afghanistan or Pakistan don't much care about Osama bin Laden.

As John Isbell pointed out, if it doesn't work, you don't pay off. So what's to lose?

"Why hasn't someone collected, and does this disturb Mark's interesting idea?"

And, if you don't like *that* idea, there's my OTHER idea: pay the people in Baghdad to surrender their weapons.

Suppose there are currently 1 million automatic weapons in Baghdad. Give $2000 for every one turned in. That's only $2 billion. Chump change to us. But to an Iraqi, $2000 is like a year's pay.

Then give $5000 for mortars, $10,000 for RPG's, etc.

For $5 billion, we could essentially purchase every weapon in Baghdad. Except those owned by fanatics...who we'd kill.

Actually, there is another benefit to that scheme, which has also been touted in the Osama scheme - put the offer out there, and let the corrosive power of money and distrust work its magic. How well will the officers sleep if they know the grunts can pick up ten years pay for shooting them? But how do you run an army when the troops don't have weapons?

It sounds like a simple enough plan.

http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1998/12/121104.html

"$3 million for every general, and $1 million for every colonel."

Mr. Bahner, if Saddam offered $3 million for every American general that came over to his side, and $1 million for every colonel, do you think that would win him the war? Why do you think Iraqis or Cubans would behave in such mercenary fashion, but not Americans?

Oh, and Mark, in what will double as shameless self-promotion and an attempt to establish a sense of solidarity, a while ago I posted my own Bold Solution to the North Korean problem - have the US promise 1 million green cards to the North Koreans lucky enough to get to China, S Korea, or Russia. Ah, the humanitarian crisis that might cause. The goal would be to get people moving, sort of like the way East Germany collapsed, but of course my scheme would need a lot of work to pass as half-baked.

I saw Mickey Kaus recently posted a similar idea to topple Saddam by announcing new safe havens, and hoping the Iraqis fled to them.

Anyway, my N Korean idea:

http://justoneminute.blogspot.com/2003_01_19_justoneminute_archive.html#90225133

"Actually, there is another benefit to that scheme, which has also been touted in the Osama scheme - put the offer out there, and let the corrosive power of money and distrust work its magic. How well will the officers sleep if they know the grunts can pick up ten years pay for shooting them? But how do you run an army when the troops don't have weapons?"

Yes! Exactly! But again, this is much bigger, and much better publicized, than the Osama reward. I'm talking about $5-10 BILLION.

And if Saddam says, "Well, I'll pay you $5-10 billion NOT to shoot your generals and me"...we just say, "We don't have any problem with you taking Saddam's money, AND ours. So go ahead, take his money...THEN shoot him and your generals, and get our money, too."

Bribery of individuals has been one of the most common ways by which the US has attained its foreign policy goals. Saddam is, in fact, on of the individuals we have sponsored. Noriega is another. If Saddam personally were really the problem, we could probablt get rid of him by this method, but we'd probably also replace him with a different Saddam.

"Mr. Bahner, if Saddam offered $3 million for every American general that came over to his side, and $1 million for every colonel, do you think that would win him the war?"

My plan is evolving. I've currently evolved beyond the idea of paying Saddam's colonels and generals to kill Saddam. I'd rather pay the colonels and LOWER-ranked people to kill Saddam AND his generals.

That would not work in reverse...i.e., Saddam couldn't pay OUR soldiers enough to kill U.S. generals and the President, because the U.S. generals and U.S. president represent a government that's going to be around for the next 100+ years...whereas Saddam's government will end, when he gets killed. (Likely to be very shortly.)

Colonels and lower-ranked people can legitimately expect that, if they kill Saddam Hussein and his generals, they will get paid, but still not suffer any additional risk (especially if offered asylum in another country). Anyone who killed U.S. generals and a U.S. president would be hunted for the rest of their lives, no matter where on earth they lived.

"Why do you think Iraqis or Cubans would behave in such mercenary fashion, but not Americans?"

It's not a matter of "mercenary." It's the fact that Saddam's and Castro's governments will end when *they* end. This plan is uniquely applicable to unelected dictators. Plus, Saddam's troops--at least some of them--KNOW he is a monster.

"If Saddam personally were really the problem, we could probablt get rid of him by this method, but we'd probably also replace him with a different Saddam."

You think that's what the U.S. is going to do? Replace Saddam with another unelected dictator?

I doubt it, considering the fact that President Bush has personally pledged his goal as being freedom for the Iraqi people. He couldn't say he'd kept his promise, if Iraq was ruled by another dictator.

"Bribery of individuals has been one of the most common ways by which the US has attained its foreign policy goals."

This isn't bribery. It's paying people to do the right thing.

Mr. Bahner, you have an awfully cynical view of human nature, and frankly, you're illustrating part of how the administration came to underestimate the difficulties of the war.
Let me put it to you this way. Suppose I could give you an opportunity to kill GWB, a $10 million reward for doing it, and a fool-proof escape plan. Would you do it?

Reread your post above, and you'll see that even with Americans, you think that the only thing preventing the people close to GWB from killing him for money is fear of being punished afterwards. Yet American history is full of peopel who sacrificed themselves for their country, with no hope of reward, and even contrary to their financial interests.

You have a view of human nature that excludes all decency, patriotism and honor--you seem to think the only important things are money and physical safety.

The fact of the matter is, as we are apparently finding out to our cost in Iraq, there are quite a few Iraqis who hate Saddam--but who love their country, and don't want a foriegn power messing with it. In much the same way, there were decent, honorable people who found themselves fighting for their home, country and friends, even though their country was Stalinist Russia, or Nazi Germany.

A little less contempt for our geopolitical opponents, please--if for no other reason, becasue it is bad tactics

"President Bush has personally pledged his goal as being freedom for the Iraqi people. He couldn't say he'd kept his promise, if Iraq was ruled by another dictator."

You underestimate his mendacity, sir. He would probably feel he'd kept his promise if the outcome of the war was removal of Saddam and tax cuts for wealthy Iraqis . . .

"Mr. Bahner, you have an awfully cynical view of human nature,..."

That's complete nonsense. I have a very POSITIVE view of human nature. I am absolutely convinced that, given on a modest amount of encouragement (i.e. a couple years salary) Iraqi troops of colonel and lower will kill their generals and Saddam Hussein.

"Let me put it to you this way. Suppose I could give you an opportunity to kill GWB, a $10 million reward for doing it, and a fool-proof escape plan. Would you do it?"

1) You could never make such an offer. I wouldn't trust you to give me the $10 million, and I KNOW you couldn't give me somewhere where I'd be safe for the rest of my life. Also,

2) G.W. Bush is not Saddam Hussein...or even CLOSE to him. To my knowledge, G.W. Bush has never deliberately killed or order killed an innocent person. Saddam Hussein has murdered, or ordered the murder, of 1000s of innocent people (e.g., the Kurdish civilians in Halabja.)

3) If you offered me only $100, and I could trust that you'd pay off, and that I'd be guaranteed to escape, I'd gladly blow Saddam Hussein's, or Fidel Castro's, brains out. Kim Il Sung, too. And Robert Mugabe. (But not Jacques Chirac, or Gerhard Schroeder.)

"Reread your post above, and you'll see that even with Americans, you think that the only thing preventing the people close to GWB from killing him for money is fear of being punished afterwards. Yet American history is full of peopel who sacrificed themselves for their country,..."

Yes, I have no doubt that virtually EVERY Iraqi soldier would sacrifice his life for his COUNTRY. But we already know that literally thousands of them don't think it's worth risking their lives for SADDAM HUSSEIN.

Saddam is not Iraq. That's why you don't see the citizens of Baghdad protesting about U.S. bombs blowing up Saddam's government buildings. The majority of them would have preferred, in fact, that we'd killed Saddam on Day 1. At least a significant minority know he's a murdering piece of #%@%.

"You have a view of human nature that excludes all decency, patriotism and honor--you seem to think the only important things are money and physical safety."

No, that's 180 degrees false. I consider that colonel Von Stauffenberg, and the other military men who plotted to kill Hitler, to be extremely courageous and honorable men. I only wish they'd succeeded.

"The fact of the matter is, as we are apparently finding out to our cost in Iraq, there are quite a few Iraqis who hate Saddam--but who love their country,..."

I don't doubt that for a minute. I'm merely suggesting giving them a little better incentive to rid their country of Saddam Hussein. It's totally bizarre to demand that they take a significant risk (killing Saddam and his generals) for no greater reward than their love of country. And it's even more bizarre to take over their country by force, when all we really need to do is kill Saddam Hussein.

"A little less contempt for our geopolitical opponents, please--if for no other reason, becasue it is bad tactics."

Again, this is utter nonsense. I don't even consider the soldiers who are involuntarily fighting for Saddam Hussein to be opponents.

The mentality of many people amazes me. *I* think wars will be perfected when ONLY leaders of countries die. I would rather Saddam Hussein be killed than even ONE Iraqi civilian, or even ONE Iraqi soldier. (Let alone one U.S. soldier.) What I'm suggesting is a way to accomplish a war where, perhaps, ONLY Saddam Hussein is killed.

That isn't "bad tactics." That's infinitely superior tactics, compared to what our country is *currently* doing.

What Mark meant to say:

"I doubt it, considering the fact that President Bush has personally pledged his goal as being freedom for the Iraqi people. He couldn't say he'd kept his promise, if Iraq was ruled by another dictator."

"This isn't bribery. It's paying people to do the right thing."

Mark, you're self-destructing in front of everyone. If you offer people money to "do the right thing", you'll get people who are looking for the money. Not people who want to do the right thing. And in the past, that method has been used over and over again, mostly with the results I just said. The idea that Bush's "personal pledge" is going to constrict his options is laughable.

People in Mesopotamia have been dealing with bribes and conspiracies for at least eleven thousand years. Saddam has thriven in the midst of his enemies for 2-3 decades. The chances that some libertarian is going to come up with a cute little gimmick that will take him out easily approach zero.

"Mark, you're self-destructing in front of everyone. If you offer people money to "do the right thing", you'll get people who are looking for the money."

This is typical faux-liberal "I hate capitalism" mentality. Why don't you instead start thinking like a REAL liberal, and stop caring why they are doing the right thing, and simply be happy that they are doing the right thing? Why do you insist that they not only do the right thing, but even have "pure" motives?

"Not people who want to do the right thing."

Again, your obsession with whether they "want to do" the right thing is ridiculous.

In the 20th century, communists who "wanted to do the right thing" (make people's wealth more equal) were responsible for the deaths of over 50 million people.

Forget what they WANT to do, and focus on what they ACTUALLY do. If they *actually* do what's right, don't bother with their motives. (Just as you shouldn't care whether their motives are pure, if they do the WRONG thing.)

"And in the past, that method has been used over and over again, mostly with the results I just said."

Name me even ONE case where a country that is at war with another country paid that other country's military to kill their leaders.

The "liberals" on this site are mind-boggling. I've proposed a method by which: 1) Saddam Hussein and his generals are deposed, 2) the poor slobs in the Iraqi military are significantly enriched, 3) very few people die, and likely no civilians, and 4) the total cost is probably less than what it will cost to kill 1000s of people while conquering Baghdad.

But y'all don't like it. It's capitalism (paying people to do the right thing, instead of them doing the right thing for nothing), and therefore must be evil. Of course, y'all have no alternate plans of your own.

Tell you what: y'all go lie down in the streets in New York City. Yeah, that'll help! :-/

"The chances that some libertarian is going to come up with a cute little gimmick that will take him out easily approach zero."

Which is still infinitely better than any approach YOU have proposed, which truly IS zero.

"Oh, and Mark, in what will double as shameless self-promotion and an attempt to establish a sense of solidarity, a while ago I posted my own Bold Solution to the North Korean problem - have the US promise 1 million green cards to the North Koreans lucky enough to get to China, S Korea, or Russia."

I appreciate the attempt to establish solidarity, Tom. It's remarkable, on a blogsite about economics, that the plan has received so little support.

I hate to dash the attempt, but I have significant problems with your plan for North Korea. :-) First off, it seems like it will cost a fortune. One million North Koreans. They don't speak English. No money or possessions. They probably don't know anything but peasant farming. Getting them into society would cost a huge amount, I'd expect.

And I don't see what's really accomplished. The North Korean government then has...12 million prisoners, instead of 13 million? Considering that the North Korean government really doesn't care if 1+ million of its people starve to death, I don't see why they'd care that 1 million left. (Well, they'd care enough to try to shoot them as they left, of course. But that's basically just target practice. An amusing pastime, to chase away the boredom.)

I have to say it, but only people living in an incredible materialistic society would think that money can buy anything - you really have not bothered to try and get inside the enemy's head before you blunder in.

As for the Iraqis showing insufficent gratitude for their liberation, this was both predictable AND PREDICTED by me and many others (if you don't believe me, go looking through the archived comments of this blog - where are the people who accused me of being a Stalinist pawn for pointing this out?). Saddam was known to be handing out Kashas to large segments of his population - NOT the action of someone who expected them to be turned against him. And the fact that the Iraqi army ran away rather than defend Kuwait City was no guide as to whether they would defend Baghdad, or even Basra.

Isn't the reaction of the Iraqi fighters and civilians also an example of Stockholm Syndrome in which captives support their captors?

Sure, we can look into Iraq and objectively count how many people die every year as a result of Saddam (hundreds of thousands) and determine that Iraqis should be willing to accept some short term pain (deaths over 100 thousand) to achieve the benefit.

But there's no way they will see it like this. Saddam has been paying off his supporters for years and for the most part, food, the source of life, has flowed directly from his power. And sure Saddam tortures and kills an unlucky small part of his population, but most Iraqis have learned to do what they need to do to avoid this. Most of the death Saddam causes comes by starvation and disease, but I suppose it is easy for an Iraqi to project this onto the USA because of how their situation deteriorated after the gulf war.

In the back of their minds I think they all know this is the wrong way to live, but they are noticing that the hostages were mostly just fine until the police showed up (well, with the exception of the one or two singled out). Any potential benefits are in their minds much less immediate and very murky. When they hear the word liberated they are probably imagining a similar wretched life under a somewhat kinder dictator.

There is going to have to be a very very long "getting to know you process" and eventually they will accept us not out of appreciation but out of the same syndrome. If appreciation comes it will be decades later.

BTW, the power of this syndrome was recently demonstrated by Elizabeth Smart. When the police stopped them and they were faced with a power far greater than the power of her captors, she apparently had no sense of the vulnerability of her captors. As intelligent as she is and as obvious as the situation should have been, she did not sense her own power. And this is an example of personal immediate benefit, not benefit of a common good!!

http://www.meaning.ca/articles/stockholm_syndrome.htm
"There is no precise, universally accepted definition of Stockholm syndrome. It generally refers to a cluster of symptoms often observed in hostages, cult members, battered women and victims of sexual and physical abuse. These symptoms include:

Emotional bonding with the captor/abuser
Seeking favor and approval from the perpetrator
Depending on the perpetrator for security and purpose of existence
Befriending and caring for the captor
Resenting police and proper authorities for their rescue attempts
Losing one's own identify in order to identify with the captor/abuser
Seeing things from the perspective of the perpetrator
Valuing every small gesture of kindness, such as letting them live
Refusing to seek freedom even given the opportunity"

Wow! I did not realize that this Stockholm Syndrome is also being used to describe the anti-war movement. Well, from the same article comes an explanation of why France is very susceptible to this (sorry for off topic).

"Who are vulnerable to Stockholm syndrome?

It is obvious that not everyone in a hostage situation will fall victim to Stockholm syndrome. Individuals with any combination of the following characteristics are most vulnerable:

Lacking a clear set of core values that define one's identify
Lacking a clear sense of meaning and purpose for one's life
Lacking a track record of overcoming difficulties
Lacking a strong personal faith in God's character and goodness
Feeling that one's life has always been controlled by powerful others
Feeling unhappy with one's life circumstances
Having a strong need for approval by authority figures
Wishing to be somebody else"

I find lacking a track record and feeling controlled by powerful others most appropriate to France. The others work too!

"I hate to dash the attempt, but I have significant problems with your plan for North Korea. :-) First off, it seems like it will cost a fortune. One million North Koreans. They don't speak English. No money or possessions. They probably don't know anything but peasant farming. Getting them into society would cost a huge amount, I'd expect."

Now which immigrant group in the United States does this sound like?

"As for the Iraqis showing insufficent gratitude for their liberation, this was both predictable AND PREDICTED by me..."

The people of Iraq have been liberated? Gee, I dunno.

It seems to me the citizens of cities like Basra have shown their attitude towards liberation by trying to flee the city by the thousands to get to the liberated side, while Saddam's fedayeen try to stop them by shooting them and bringing mortar fire down on them.

You predicted Saddam would treat his people like that?

OTOH, outside of cities like Basra where Saddam's thugs still rule, from the small towns that *have* been liberated, if you have been paying any attention at all, you've seen lots of reports like this...
~~

by Jonathan Foreman
EN ROUTE WITH V CORPS

... In village after dusty village, the people -- most presumably Shiites -- rushed out to greet the troops. They lined the highway: portly older men, teenage boys, little girls in brightly colored pajamas,waving, giving the thumbs-up sign and smiling.

Bravo Company's Sgt. Roy Lee Brown III (32) of Hackensack, N.J., said, "This gives me a real good feeling" ...

Sitting next to him on the M113 APC, Lt. Kevin Hallstrom, 25, of Albuquerqe, N.M., observed: "They look so beat down, the people here." But they also looked elated.

And I never felt more proud of being an American or of America's armed forces ... if the government had listened to the naysayers and not come here and liberated these people, that would have been a real crime.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/71621.htm
~~~

You predicted this reaction from the actually liberated too?

"Now which immigrant group in the United States does this sound like?"

The closest group would probably be Haitians. But Haitians don't live half a world away. And they likely won't be killed if they return to Haiti.

So I don't think it particularly "sounds like" any immigrant group in the U.S. But I assume you had some group in mind?

Now, even though I think letting in a million North Koreans would be very costly to the United States, and not a particularly good idea--as compared to, say, letting in a million technical professionals from Singapore and India--I can see at least *one* potential benefit. Such an act might just cause the whole, rotten U.S. welfare state to collapse. So there's a potential silver lining to the cloud. :-)

"You could never make such an offer. I wouldn't trust you to give me the $10 million, and I KNOW you couldn't give me somewhere where I'd be safe for the rest of my life."

Don't you see that that is PRECISELY the credibility the USA has? This isn't an argument against Saddam Hussein's using these methods - he has after all demonstrated that he does make cash payouts to the families of suicide bombers - but against the USA doing so. See, for instance, how well Geronimo was able to rely on US promises. Or what happened to Marcos when he got on a US plane that was supposed to take him to the area where he had grass roots support.

They won't take any such offer for the same reason Saddam Hussein won't leave: they have the examples of the USA saying "April Fool" to people before. Honour doesn't rest on whether the recipients deserve what was promised on THEIR merits, but on whether YOU get trusted. If you make a promise and break it, all the rationalisations in the world won't get you trusted again.

"Don't you see that that is PRECISELY the credibility the USA has?"

You're saying that, if the U.S. government makes a public offer of $X,XXX dollars to every Republican Guard soldier and low-ranking office, to perform a specific service (in this case, overthrow Saddam Hussein and his generals), that those people wouldn't trust the U.S. government to honor that public commitment?

"This isn't an argument against Saddam Hussein's using these methods - he has after all demonstrated that he does make cash payouts to the families of suicide bombers - but against the USA doing so."

If Saddam Hussein's death troubles you, the reward could be for the capture and delivery for trial of Saddam Hussein, rather than his death. By the way, it's really remarkable that your point of view equates Saddam Hussein's cash payments to families of suicide bombers (i.e. those who deliberated kill civilians) with a U.S. government payment to kill Saddam Hussein and his generals (thereby almost certainly saving hundreds or thousands of civilian and low-ranking military lives).

"See, for instance, how well Geronimo was able to rely on US promises."

Geronimo? Geronimo died almost 100 years ago, for goodness sake! You're Australian, right? Do you think the Australian government's dealings with the Aborigines in the 1880's is a valid point of reference for how the Australian government will honor its monetary commitments in 2003? If not, why do you think such a point of reference is valid for the U.S. government?

"Or what happened to Marcos when he got on a US plane that was supposed to take him to the area where he had grass roots support."

??? Did a U.S. president ever get on world-wide TV and say, "The U.S. government will fly Ferdinand Marcos to where he has grass roots support?" (By the way, didn't Marcos die in a U.S. hospital in Hawaii? How is that any sort of betrayal?)

What *I'm* talking about is Congress passing a bill, and President Bush announcing it on worldwide television: "If the Iraqi Republican Guard members, below the rank of general, will arrest/kill their generals, and arrest/kill Saddam Hussein, we will give $x,xxx to every colonel, $y,yyy to every captain, $z,zzz to every private..." Or, whatever. Economists could be used to figure out what the most appropriate payments would be, for a total monetary award of $5 billion. Or $10 billion. Or whatever Congress agreed upon.

"They won't take any such offer for the same reason Saddam Hussein won't leave:..."

Saddam Hussein won't leave, because he knows many people (including many within his country) would demand that he stand trial for war crimes/crimes against humanity. So he knows he'd likely spend the rest of his life in a prison, if he left. So the reasons for low-ranking Republican Guard officers/soldiers not accepting the offer aren't even close to the same.

"Honour doesn't rest on whether the recipients deserve what was promised on THEIR merits, but on whether YOU get trusted. If you make a promise and break it, all the rationalisations in the world won't get you trusted again."

It's amazing how little rational thought goes on at this website!

What options do y'all (you, Jason McCullough, and derrida derider, rea, and everyone else who has criticized my proposal) think are open to the soldiers and low-ranking officers of the Iraqi Republican Guard? Are y'all completely insane enough to think that Saddam Hussein will actually win this war?! If not, what options are open to the Republican Guard?

1) They can fight and die (as over 1000 of them have already done)...while not changing Saddam Hussein's fate.

2) They can surrender, and get no money. (Unless you're irrational enough to argue that post-war aid to Iraq is going to be enough to give individual Iraqi citizens thousands of dollars.)

3) They can turn on Saddam and his generals (i.e. less than 20 men), and receive several thousand dollars, each. That's my suggested option.

Now, of those 3 options, which you choose?