March 26, 2003

TURN 'EM LOOSE:

Lessons on how to oust Hussein: Kurds who fought in the 1991 uprising say involving them and encouraging civilian revolts are key. (Cameron W. Barr, March 27, 2003, The Christian Science Monitor)
Kurdish strategist Noshirwan Mustafa, standing at a conference table in his book-lined study, points out Iraqi troop deployments marked in red on a glassed-over map of the country.

He traces with his finger the arc of the US-led advance toward Baghdad, admiring how American forces have largely bypassed Iraqi troops around Basra. "I think the war is going very well," he says.

But a week into the fighting, Mr. Mustafa is critical of other aspects of the US battle plan, asserting that the US has allowed the Iraqi leadership to maintain internal communications, has only belatedly targeted the country's mass media, and so far has neglected the "political dimension."

"Until now, the Iraqi population has no [reason for] confidence that this is a permanent change of the political system," Mustafa says.

Mustafa, a gray-haired eminence in the Kurdish movement, was the architect of the Kurds' 1991 uprising against the regime of President Saddam Hussein, which culminated in their seizure of the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk.

The Kurds only held Kirkuk for eight days, in part because the US declined to prevent Mr. Hussein's forces from crushing their rebellion, but their experience seems to offer lessons that might be useful today.

Mustafa recounts how the Kurds determined that the regime's power was centered in four key institutions in every collective camp, town, and city in northern Iraq: the branch of the ruling Baath Party, the local offices of the Iraqi intelligence, military intelligence, and security services.

As they did in other towns and cities in 1991, the Kurds targeted these four institutions in Kirkuk. "If you can crush them," Mustafa says, "you can control the cities."


The idea of letting the Kurds, Shi'ites and other opposition groups take up arms has several advantages, including their greater knowledge, their willingness to be ruthless in ways we can't be, and the long term spiritual benefit of their having contributed to their own liberation. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 26, 2003 10:18 PM
Comments

But only if these groups can be controlled, which I thnk is emminently doubtful.



It is desperately important to avoid the massacres which are almost certain to occur if you "turn 'em loose."



Since massacres (might it be agreed?) are not conducive to "nation building."

Posted by: Barry Meislin at March 27, 2003 4:28 AM

I'm pro-massacre. There needs to be some blood-letting because the justice system won't be able to try and execute as many Ba'athists as deserve it.

Posted by: oj at March 27, 2003 8:00 AM

I'm not pro-massacre; but a settling of scores with the hardcore Ba'athists and their supporters who committed crimes would be an important step in releasing some of the hate that will prevail otherwise. True, some will be killed who may have just been fellow travelers, but that's the risk they assumed for their personal benefit. As Ariana Fallaci might say: to the lamposts! Better yet, done quietly, Mafia style: to the car trunks!

Posted by: genecis at March 27, 2003 9:09 AM

genecis:



That's massacre--let's not get squeamish about what we're doing.

Posted by: oj at March 27, 2003 11:36 AM
« ONE OUTRAGE AFTER ANOTHER (via PejmanPundit): | Main | U.S. OUT OF U.N. NOW: »