‘US Army pays Iraq warlords for peace’ -- Couldn't we have done this thousand's of lives ago?

[bigtree]

New York, Oct. 8: The United States military is paying tribal leaders in Iraq to secure their loyalty and ensure peace, but critics contend empowering regional strongmen is creating a warlord state with tribal and religious leaders operating increasingly independent and often unconstitutionally, a media report said on Monday.

The United States military has discovered too late that Iraq’s tangled network of tribal leaders is a major key to security, the upcoming issue of Newsweek says.

Over the past one year, "government from the bottom up" has become one of ambassador Ryan Crocker’s favourite catchphrases, it adds.

As violence has declined in Sunni enclaves like Ramadi and Fallujah in recent months, the United States commanders have tried to replicate the apparent success of the region’s Anbar Salvation Council elsewhere, the report notes.

Last summer US commanders spent millions of dollars on "concerned local citizens" programmes — essentially paying off tribal sheikhs to keep their followers from planting roadside bombs, Newsweek reported.

In Tikrit’s Salah Ad Din province, the United states Army has spent more than $5 million to buy the loyalty of 26 different sheikhs, it adds.

With Iraqi Prime Minister Noori al-Maliki government, weaker than ever before, unable to provide basic services even to Baghdad power brokers in the provinces are enjoying something of a renaissance.


Newsweek quoted an unidentified American diplomat as referring the project derisively as a "guns and whisky" strategy . . .


report: http://www.asianage.com/presentation/leftnavigation/news/international/%E2%80%98us-army-pays-iraq-warlords-for-peace%E2%80%99.aspx

[TwilightGardener]

1. Yep--here's an idea: Instead of billions for our troops to kick in doors

and get blown up and shot, let's just pull most of them out and spend a few more million paying off the tribal leaders to enforce the peace. That's what happened in southern Iraq--we have lost control of that totally, but it's more peaceful since the British pulled back to almost no presence--we're bribing the militias to keep the port of Basra and the supply roads open.

[groovedaddy]

2. I've thought the same thing...the money, differntly spent

could have spared alot of bloodshed, not to mention the savings in $$$.
Of course, Bush & Cheney's friends probably wouldn't have made nearly the money they have (stolen) under this scenario.

[greenman3610]

3. Let's give it a name

Cheaper to subsidize them than
kill them.

I call it
"War-fare"

[The2ndWheel]

4. That's just investing in future war

Brilliant!

[TwilightGardener]

5. Not necessarily true--the various tribes and militias have been, and will be, major

factors in Iraq. To persuade them (by monetary means, if necessary) to behave peacefully is worthwhile. Now, ARMING the tribes and militias, as we have done with the Sunnis, is a recipe for more war--but, paying them off, rewarding them for "good behavior"? If it works at all for any length of time, it will have been far more effective than our military solutions have been to date.

[fed-up]

6. when will they start paying US citizens loyalty money-whoops they already do for some nt

[Monk06]

7. Brilliant. Those 26 Tikriti sheikhs are Saddam Hussein's relatives.

If the US had just taken the half Trillion $
that have been spent on this war and dropped
it from helicopters all over Iraq four years
ago, Iraq would be both peaceful and prosperous.

[bigtree]

8. that's it exactly

what a waste

[Skidmore]

9. But, but, but...

Money is to play football with.

[bigtree]

10. they played with lives for their bloodsport

we were expendable