Should we pay Sons of Iraq

[Kelly the Dog]

Most anyone following the Iraq war knows that one of the biggest elements of the surge working was to basically pay 100,000 of the bad guys not to fight against and kill Americans. It was about a million dollars a day total (about $10 a day or $300 a month for each "Son of Iraq").

 

We have been slowing weaning ourselves off that policy and it completely stopped last month I think, with the Iraqis supposed to pay some of them themselves. This isn't an Obama decision to stop, it was always a Bush plan and it worked great while we were paying them. But at some point it had to stop, we couldn't just keep paying them. Already, however, the Sons of Iraq aren't happy about not getting paid and are grumbling about returning to al Qaeda. Nice guys that they are.

 

So the question is, should we just keep paying them not to kill us, or, as was the plan, to let the Iraqis take care of their own problem. This likely isn't going to end well.

[Alaska Darin]

People like free money. Liberals should understand that better than anyone.

[Kelly the Dog]

People like free money. Liberals should understand that better than anyone.

Nonsense. You seem to understand that better than any liberal.

 

And it doesn't answer the question.

[blzrul]

I never understood how anyone could be sure that these guys getting paid kept their word.

 

And what are they doing with the money? "Putting food on their family"? Maybe there are alternative ways to spend the money that will have the beneficial results they want. Of course maybe they're using it to buy and stockpile arms for a time when America has exited...

 

Paying people not to kill us seems as bad as paying a ransom if you think about it - tantamount to an admission that things were WAY out of control there.

 

As there are fewer Americans in Iraq there are fewer targets.

 

I agree with you, either way it's not going to be a happy ending.

[PushthePile]

I did a deployment in Iraq and can only give an example of how this doesn't work. I was in India Co. 3/25 out of Buffalo and deployed in 05. I can remember at different times during our deployment we handed out money for collateral damage caused by Marines. We would go out on patrol and set up a defense somewhere near an area we messed up. A government official would literally start passing out money. A line would form and people would just start collecting. No questions, no investigation! All it took was, my car was destroyed. Sorry about that, here have a pile of money. My cart was blown up. Okay no problem, have a bag of money. A marine accidentally killed my daughter. Sorry to hear that, you get a big pile of money. Honestly, we had to have passed out millions over the deployment. Marines seem to have a knack for destroying things. Sorry if that offends anyone. On a sidenote: I made $26,000 as a corporal/sergeant.

 

We would then shake hands and kiss babies all the way back to our firm base. The strangest thing happened over the next week, after handing out all that money. We would find alot more IED's, more attacks with small arms fire, and less assistance from City officials/public. In short, more Marines got hurt. We then would find ourselves handing out more money for the damage caused from these latest attacks. We pay for insurgent damage as well. Interesting way to fight a war, huh?

[finknottle]

Bush didn't invent the idea of a guy showing up with a bag of money to get a tribe to fight on your side.

[blzrul]

I did a deployment in Iraq and can only give an example of how this doesn't work. I was in India Co. 3/25 out of Buffalo and deployed in 05. I can remember at different times during our deployment we handed out money for collateral damage caused by Marines. We would go out on patrol and set up a defense somewhere near an area we messed up. A government official would literally start passing out money. A line would form and people would just start collecting. No questions, no investigation! All it took was, my car was destroyed. Sorry about that, here have a pile of money. My cart was blown up. Okay no problem, have a bag of money. A marine accidentally killed my daughter. Sorry to hear that, you get a big pile of money. Honestly, we had to have passed out millions over the deployment. Marines seem to have a knack for destroying things. Sorry if that offends anyone. On a sidenote: I made $26,000 as a corporal/sergeant.

 

We would then shake hands and kiss babies all the way back to our firm base. The strangest thing happened over the next week, after handing out all that money. We would find alot more IED's, more attacks with small arms fire, and less assistance from City officials/public. In short, more Marines got hurt. We then would find ourselves handing out more money for the damage caused from these latest attacks. We pay for insurgent damage as well. Interesting way to fight a war, huh?

Interesting isn't the word I'd use...I just would like to get our people the hell out of there and back to their families. They may be heroes but they are human too and have certainly done a fine job in tough circumstances. Enough is enough.

 

And in light of what you say - we might as well save our money.

[finknottle]

Interesting isn't the word I'd use...I just would like to get our people the hell out of there and back to their families. They may be heroes but they are human too and have certainly done a fine job in tough circumstances. Enough is enough.

 

And in light of what you say - we might as well save our money.

 

Paying off the tribal leaders and reimbursing damages are two separate programs. The former is politics, and the latter PR. When we pay a shopkeeper for busting up his store, we are doing it because we think it right, with no support or forgiveness demanded from him. Which is just as well, because the 'Sons of Iraq' did not form and support us because reimbursement led to an outpouring of popular support.

 

I find it ironic that you would not find the principal behind reimbursement worthwhile in its own right - shouldn't we be trying to show that we have the best of intentions, and that vindictive damage is not our goal?

[blzrul]

Paying off the tribal leaders and reimbursing damages are two separate programs. The former is politics, and the latter PR. When we pay a shopkeeper for busting up his store, we are doing it because we think it right, with no support or forgiveness demanded from him. Which is just as well, because the 'Sons of Iraq' did not form and support us because reimbursement led to an outpouring of popular support.

 

I find it ironic that you would not find the principal behind reimbursement worthwhile in its own right - shouldn't we be trying to show that we have the best of intentions, and that vindictive damage is not our goal?

I don't have any problems with the principle but if after 6 years it's not working, as someone WHO WAS THERE seems to imply, they why keep doing it? Isn't that the definition of insanity?

 

Remember the same people who predicted dancing in the streets and greeting our troops as liberators came up with this program. Had they been right about the former, the latter would probably have been a good idea. But they weren't.

 

Either way things are going to get rough. But after 6 years the Iraquis should be able to take care of themselves.

[PushthePile]

Paying off the tribal leaders and reimbursing damages are two separate programs. The former is politics, and the latter PR. When we pay a shopkeeper for busting up his store, we are doing it because we think it right, with no support or forgiveness demanded from him. Which is just as well, because the 'Sons of Iraq' did not form and support us because reimbursement led to an outpouring of popular support.

 

I find it ironic that you would not find the principal behind reimbursement worthwhile in its own right - shouldn't we be trying to show that we have the best of intentions, and that vindictive damage is not our goal?

When you ask young Marines to go into a hostile situation and fight an enemy, showing the public we have best intentions is far from the goal. Especially when that same public is working with the enemy against you. I wasn't too interested in the politics of the war or building up a government for Iraq. In 05 things were still very chaotic and ultra-dangerous. If a shopkeeper loses his store because of an engagement and subsequent collateral damage, I feel bad for him. I don't however condone handing out cash in that situation. I'm sorry about the store and destroying public property is not the objective but unfortunately it is the consequences of war. If the United States isn't prepared to take the responsibility for that, then don't put the military in that position. Handing out cash to make good in the public eye, gets Americans killed. A large portion of that money is immediately turned into IEDs and weapons.

[IDBillzFan]

I don't have any problems with the principle but if after 6 years it's not working, as someone WHO WAS THERE seems to imply, they why keep doing it? Isn't that the definition of insanity?

It would seem to me that the next time Obama has a prime-time press conference, instead of asking him how enchanted he is, someone would ask him K-Dog's question, because it's a good question. And since Obama promised during his campaign to get the US out of Iraq by June, one could only assume that he clearly had an exit strategy. I mean, it's not like he would make a promise like that without having thought it through, right? Oh, I know, he promised the very first thing he would do when president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act, and in the midst of doing 9,000 other earmarked things, this promise didn't make it. Though I'm sure it's the exception and not the rule, and that Obama COMPLETELY knew what he was talking about, complete with an exit strategy, when he PROMISED that we'd be out of Iraq in June.

 

Here's an interesting article discussing K-dog's initial question. Bloodshed on the rise. Insurgents gaining ground. CLEARLY this is all a part of Obama's plan given he PROMISED to end this, right?

 

Interesting stuff. Maybe in between wearing $540 sneakers to a homeless event and holding creme puff press conferences about being enchanted, the Obamas will get back in touch with the little people to ensure the promises he made to get elected actually are kept.

 

Not too much to ask, right?

 

(Oh, wait. This just in. Obama can't keeps his promises because of Bush. Or Cheney. Or Palin. Yeah, that Levi dude. What's up with that, huh? Dude, I was like WTF, and he was like "Dude...totally..." And this Swine Flu thing is like a pandemic that Bush didn't even prepare for, but we threw another $1.5billion in the kitty just to cover our bases. I mean, we're already at the printing press, right?)

 

I'm sorry...what was the question again? Oh, right. Iraq. Bush's fault. It was inherited. Next question?

 

The sneakers? They're from Lanvin. When you're helping the homeless while wearing a Gap cardigan, how else do you pair the kicks, am I right?

[Kelly the Dog]

It would seem to me that the next time Obama has a prime-time press conference, instead of asking him how enchanted he is, someone would ask him K-Dog's question, because it's a good question. And since Obama promised during his campaign to get the US out of Iraq by June, one could only assume that he clearly had an exit strategy. I mean, it's not like he would make a promise like that without having thought it through, right? Oh, I know, he promised the very first thing he would do when president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act, and in the midst of doing 9,000 other earmarked things, this promise didn't make it. Though I'm sure it's the exception and not the rule, and that Obama COMPLETELY knew what he was talking about, complete with an exit strategy, when he PROMISED that we'd be out of Iraq in June.

 

Here's an interesting article discussing K-dog's initial question. Bloodshed on the rise. Insurgents gaining ground. CLEARLY this is all a part of Obama's plan given he PROMISED to end this, right?

 

Interesting stuff. Maybe in between wearing $540 sneakers to a homeless event and holding creme puff press conferences about being enchanted, the Obamas will get back in touch with the little people to ensure the promises he made to get elected actually are kept.

 

Not too much to ask, right?

 

(Oh, wait. This just in. Obama can't keeps his promises because of Bush. Or Cheney. Or Palin. Yeah, that Levi dude. What's up with that, huh? Dude, I was like WTF, and he was like "Dude...totally..." And this Swine Flu thing is like a pandemic that Bush didn't even prepare for, but we threw another $1.5billion in the kitty just to cover our bases. I mean, we're already at the printing press, right?)

 

I'm sorry...what was the question again? Oh, right. Iraq. Bush's fault. It was inherited. Next question?

 

The sneakers? They're from Lanvin. When you're helping the homeless while wearing a Gap cardigan, how else do you pair the kicks, am I right?

Next May or June was the original target for Obama, which was never steadfast, not this June. Now it is set for September 2010. This June was an agreement from Bush that started January 1. And today the Iraqis said they werent going to allow us to stay in towns after the June deadline no matter what. It wasn't an Obama promise or agreement and he couldn't change it even if he wanted to. Nice mindless Obama bashing though.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Iraq/id...E5422D320090503

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/a...une-withdrawal/

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

People like free money. Liberals should understand that better than anyone.

 

and "non liberals" can't help themselves from talking shi+

 

We are esentially talking bribes here. When does it stop.

 

If we "don't negotiate" with the enemy why the bribes?

[finknottle]

I don't have any problems with the principle but if after 6 years it's not working, as someone WHO WAS THERE seems to imply, they why keep doing it? Isn't that the definition of insanity?

 

What exactly do you mean by 'not working?' You seem to continue to think that the purpose of reimbursements is to get them to like us - it is not. It is to show that we are attempting to govern our presence and behavior under a semblance of law. You can argue whether that is hypocritical all you like, but it doesn't change the intended purpose.

 

When NATO runs exercises in Germany, we pay the Germans for every bullet fired into a tree. And yet they still B word and moan. Should we stop?

 

By the same token, why do we investigate and try soldiers for wrongfull killings? By your reasoning, we should abandon the practice since it isn't working - no family of a killed Iraqi has ever said "they court martialed the guy who killed my brother, that's alright now."

 

I actually don't agree with the program. I'm simply marveling that you are rejecting it (presumably because it started under Bush), while presumably embracing the idea that it matters what the world thinks of us and that we should set an example on things from interrogation to foreign aid.

[finknottle]

When you ask young Marines to go into a hostile situation and fight an enemy, showing the public we have best intentions is far from the goal. Especially when that same public is working with the enemy against you. I wasn't too interested in the politics of the war or building up a government for Iraq. In 05 things were still very chaotic and ultra-dangerous. If a shopkeeper loses his store because of an engagement and subsequent collateral damage, I feel bad for him. I don't however condone handing out cash in that situation. I'm sorry about the store and destroying public property is not the objective but unfortunately it is the consequences of war. If the United States isn't prepared to take the responsibility for that, then don't put the military in that position. Handing out cash to make good in the public eye, gets Americans killed. A large portion of that money is immediately turned into IEDs and weapons.

 

That's a question of politics and implementation. I don't agree with it for precisely the reasons you state. But it doesn't change the basic point:

 

The program of reimbursement, whether done stupidly or smartly, is PR. It was to make us look better to the world, and to ease tensions with the local populace - but nobody is under any illusions as to the degree of the latter. Reimbursements are neither expected nor intended to get people to join 'Sons of Iraq' and take up arms against the insurgents.

[K-9]

We don't even negotiate with terrorists, let alone pay them.

[IDBillzFan]

Next May or June was the original target for Obama, which was never steadfast, not this June. Now it is set for September 2010. This June was an agreement from Bush that started January 1. And today the Iraqis said they werent going to allow us to stay in towns after the June deadline no matter what. It wasn't an Obama promise or agreement and he couldn't change it even if he wanted to. Nice mindless Obama bashing though.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Iraq/id...E5422D320090503

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/a...une-withdrawal/

Big surprise you find it mindless. It means little to you that he says he's going to do one thing, and then does another. It's what politicians do, right? Perfectly acceptable to you.

 

He said 16 months after being elected. Not that someone like me believed his campaign rhetoric any way, but the Peggy's of the world believed him, and many of the Peggys of the world put him in office because of this promise. So with the mutual understanding that his word means little to you and me, back to the original point: How do you make a promise like that without already having answer for the Sons of Iraq question you posed? Answer: Of course you have an answer. It's just that no one is posing the question. I mean, no sane person would make a promise like "out of Iraq within 16 months of my presidency" without having the answer, right? One would believe that a smart, intelligent, world-loved, well-spoken, highly-respected, uber-popular man like Obama clearly had a plan, right? He MUST have an answer for getting out of Iraq, right?

 

"We campaign in poetry, but we govern in prose," Mario Cuomo once said.

[Kelly the Dog]

Big surprise you find it mindless. It means little to you that he says he's going to do one thing, and then does another. It's what politicians do, right? Perfectly acceptable to you.

 

He said 16 months after being elected. Not that someone like me believed his campaign rhetoric any way, but the Peggy's of the world believed him, and many of the Peggys of the world put him in office because of this promise. So with the mutual understanding that his word means little to you and me, back to the original point: How do you make a promise like that without already having answer for the Sons of Iraq question you posed? Answer: Of course you have an answer. It's just that no one is posing the question. I mean, no sane person would make a promise like "out of Iraq within 16 months of my presidency" without having the answer, right? One would believe that a smart, intelligent, world-loved, well-spoken, highly-respected, uber-popular man like Obama clearly had a plan, right? He MUST have an answer for getting out of Iraq, right?

 

"We campaign in poetry, but we govern in prose," Mario Cuomo once said.

You're talking about two different years. That's why it's mindless. The article you referenced was about a removal of troops NEXT MONTH which isn't going to happen, and wasn't Obama's plan, it was Bush's plan.

 

Obama's plan for removal during the election ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS was targeted at 16 months, DEPENDING ON WHAT WAS HAPPENING ON THE GROUND, AND AFTER CONSULTING WITH THE GENERALS. That was always the plan, and what he consistently said, and the only reasonable way to do it, and exactly what he did. I would bet you $100,000 that is what the military knew was the plan because it never changed.

 

He never ever ever said it's etched in stone, it's 16 months or else, or anything like that. He thought we could be out in 16 months but always said he had to discuss it with the men on the ground. Always. If you want to just take a clip from a campaign stop where he said I will stop the war and get us out of Iraq in 16 months go ahead. He did. But he's not going to go into the entire idea every time he talked about it. 16 months was the target date.

 

When he got into office he immediately brought in the generals and asked how quickly can we reasonably be out. They came back weeks later with three plans, and said 19 months was the earliest we could do it the right way, not 16, and Obama said good. That's why it was extended. It wasn't in any way a break of a promise, it was exactly what he said he would do.

 

This was his original plan, which he wrote in a NYT editorial himself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=1

 

And to answer your question, you can make a promise like that because the Sons of Iraq payments were always supposed to end. It wasn't an ongoing thing. The Iraqis were supposed to take over the payments themselves and then put some of these guys into the regular security forces. That was a Bush thing and Obama had nothing to do with it. But it was always the case.

[IDBillzFan]

He never ever ever said it's etched in stone, it's 16 months or else, or anything like that.

That article is a perfect example of why this dude is such as sham. He stands in front of billions on TV and says "We will get out in 16 months," and then later he has someone pen an article in the NYT that qualifies his original comments so they won't come back to bite him in the ass. Again, YOU know that because you wake up on your sateen Obama commemorative throw pillow every morning, and I know that because it's pretty clear he really doesn't have much to say beyond what is scripted for him. But the people who showed up in masses to adore and love and pass out with his every word DO NOT know that unless they all get a copy of the NYTimes, and we both know the answer to that.

 

So one last time; if you can make a promise like that, especially if you KNOW the Sons of Iraq package was always going to end, then again, WHAT is the answer to the increased bloodshed? He clearly must have an answer or he wouldn't have made such a promise, as clearly disingenuous as it was, right?

 

Oh, wait. It wasn't disingenuous. He qualified his comments. It wasn't etched in stone.

 

I'm sure that will make everything better.

[Kelly the Dog]

That article is a perfect example of why this dude is such as sham. He stands in front of billions on TV and says "We will get out in 16 months," and then later he has someone pen an article in the NYT that qualifies his original comments so they won't come back to bite him in the ass. Again, YOU know that because you wake up on your sateen Obama commemorative throw pillow every morning, and I know that because it's pretty clear he really doesn't have much to say beyond what is scripted for him. But the people who showed up in masses to adore and love and pass out with his every word DO NOT know that unless they all get a copy of the NYTimes, and we both know the answer to that.

 

So one last time; if you can make a promise like that, especially if you KNOW the Sons of Iraq package was always going to end, then again, WHAT is the answer to the increased bloodshed? He clearly must have an answer or he wouldn't have made such a promise, as clearly disingenuous as it was, right?

 

Oh, wait. It wasn't disingenuous. He qualified his comments. It wasn't etched in stone.

 

I'm sure that will make everything better.

Go ahead and keep making a fool of yourself talking about stuff you clearly know nothing about. Sometimes his speechwriter or writers do speeches for him which he edits himself, sometimes he does a draft and then has his main guy, who is great, Jon favreau, mold it. Often times the big speeches, like the economic one a couple weeks ago, the one on race, most of the inaugural, he writes himself. There are ongoing friendly arguments all the time in the White House because Obama, who has a huge ego, claims he's a better speechwriter than his heralded speechwriter.

 

But keep on saying he just reads what others wrote for him knowing nothing about it. It makes you look real smart and makes me put a lot more stock in your opinions.