The Salvador Option In Iraq
John Pilger | 04.05.2006 18:18 | Repression | World
Leaked documents, such as "Iraq: Options Paper", written by the Bliar Government, prove that Bush and Blair's respective criminal Regimes were discussing the old Colonial Trick of "Divide & Rule" (fomenting Civil War) a full year before their illegal War of Aggression began.
Again, the media sleeps on the issue, even though Documentary Evidence proves this.
Again, the media sleeps on the issue, even though Documentary Evidence proves this.
John Pilger detects the Salvador Option
Columnists
John Pilger
Monday 8th May 2006
The American public is being prepared. If the attack on Iran does come, there will be no warning, no declaration of war, no truth, writes John Pilger
The lifts in the New York Hilton played CNN on a small screen you could not avoid watching. Iraq was top of the news; pronouncements about a "civil war" and "sectarian violence" were repeated incessantly. It was as if the US invasion had never happened and the killing of tens of thousands of civilians by the Americans was a surreal fiction. The Iraqis were mindless Arabs, haunted by religion, ethnic strife and the need to blow themselves up. Unctuous puppet politicians were paraded with no hint that their exercise yard was inside an American fortress.
And when you left the lift, this followed you to your room, to the hotel gym, the airport, the next airport and the next country. Such is the power of America's corporate propaganda, which, as Edward Said pointed out in Culture and Imperialism, "penetrates electronically" with its equivalent of a party line.
The party line changed the other day. For almost three years it was that al-Qaeda was the driving force behind the "insurgency", led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a bloodthirsty Jordanian who was clearly being groomed for the kind of infamy Saddam Hussein enjoys. It mattered not that al-Zarqawi had never been seen alive and that only a fraction of the "insurgents" followed al-Qaeda. For the Americans, Zarqawi's role was to distract attention from the thing that almost all Iraqis oppose: the brutal Anglo-American occupation of their country.
Now that al-Zarqawi has been replaced by "sectarian violence" and "civil war", the big news is the attacks by Sunnis on Shia mosques and bazaars. The real news, which is not reported in the CNN "mainstream", is that the Salvador Option has been invoked in Iraq. This is the campaign of terror by death squads armed and trained by the US, which attack Sunnis and Shias alike. The goal is the incitement of a real civil war and the break-up of Iraq, the original war aim of Bush's administration. The ministry of the interior in Baghdad, which is run by the CIA, directs the principal death squads. Their members are not exclusively Shia, as the myth goes. The most brutal are the Sunni-led Special Police Commandos, headed by former senior officers in Saddam's Ba'ath Party. This unit was formed and trained by CIA "counter-insurgency" experts, including veterans of the CIA's terror operations in central America in the 1980s, notably El Salvador. In his new book, Empire's Workshop (Metropolitan Books), the American historian Greg Grandin describes the Salvador Option thus: "Once in office, [President] Reagan came down hard on central America, in effect letting his administration's most committed militarists set and execute policy. In El Salvador, they provided more than a million dollars a day to fund a lethal counter-insurgency campaign . . . All told, US allies in central America during Reagan's two terms killed over 300,000 people, tortured hundreds of thousands and drove millions into exile."
Although the Reagan administration spawned the current Bushites, or "neo-cons", the pattern was set earlier. In Vietnam, death squads trained, armed and directed by the CIA murdered up to 50,000 people in Operation Phoenix. In the mid-1960s in Indonesia CIA officers compiled "death lists" for General Suharto's killing spree during his seizure of power. After the 2003 invasion, it was only a matter of time before this venerable "policy" was applied in Iraq.
According to the investigative writer Max Fuller (National Review Online), the key CIA manager of the interior ministry death squads "cut his teeth in Vietnam before moving on to direct the US military mission in El Salvador". Professor Grandin names another central America veteran whose job now is to "train a ruthless counter-insurgent force made up of ex-Ba'athist thugs". Another, says Fuller, is well-known for his "production of death lists". A secret militia run by the Americans is the Facilities Protection Service, which has been responsible for bombings. "The British and US Special Forces," concludes Fuller, "in conjunction with the [US-created] intelligence services at the Iraqi defence ministry, are fabricating insurgent bombings of Shias."
On 16 March, Reuters reported the arrest of an American "security contractor" who was found with weapons and explosives in his car. Last year, two Britons disguised as Arabs were caught with a car full of weapons and explosives; British forces bulldozed the Basra prison to rescue them. The Boston Globe recently reported: "The FBI's counter-terrorism unit has launched a broad investigation of US-based theft rings after discovering that some of the vehicles used in deadly car bombings in Iraq, including attacks that killed US troops and Iraqi civilians, were probably stolen
in the United States, according to senior government officials."
As I say, all this has been tried before - just as the preparation of the American public for an atrocious attack on Iran is similar to the WMD fabrications in Iraq. If that attack comes, there will be no warning, no declaration of war, no truth. Imprisoned in the Hilton lift, staring at CNN, my fellow passengers could be excused for not making sense of the Middle East, or Latin America, or anywhere. They are isolated. Nothing is explained. Congress is silent. The Democrats are moribund. And the freest media on earth insult the public every day. As Voltaire put it: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Read more from the latest issue of the New Statesman
This article first appeared in the New Statesman. For the latest in current and cultural affairs subscribe to the New Statesman print edition.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200605080016
Columnists
John Pilger
Monday 8th May 2006
The American public is being prepared. If the attack on Iran does come, there will be no warning, no declaration of war, no truth, writes John Pilger
The lifts in the New York Hilton played CNN on a small screen you could not avoid watching. Iraq was top of the news; pronouncements about a "civil war" and "sectarian violence" were repeated incessantly. It was as if the US invasion had never happened and the killing of tens of thousands of civilians by the Americans was a surreal fiction. The Iraqis were mindless Arabs, haunted by religion, ethnic strife and the need to blow themselves up. Unctuous puppet politicians were paraded with no hint that their exercise yard was inside an American fortress.
And when you left the lift, this followed you to your room, to the hotel gym, the airport, the next airport and the next country. Such is the power of America's corporate propaganda, which, as Edward Said pointed out in Culture and Imperialism, "penetrates electronically" with its equivalent of a party line.
The party line changed the other day. For almost three years it was that al-Qaeda was the driving force behind the "insurgency", led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a bloodthirsty Jordanian who was clearly being groomed for the kind of infamy Saddam Hussein enjoys. It mattered not that al-Zarqawi had never been seen alive and that only a fraction of the "insurgents" followed al-Qaeda. For the Americans, Zarqawi's role was to distract attention from the thing that almost all Iraqis oppose: the brutal Anglo-American occupation of their country.
Now that al-Zarqawi has been replaced by "sectarian violence" and "civil war", the big news is the attacks by Sunnis on Shia mosques and bazaars. The real news, which is not reported in the CNN "mainstream", is that the Salvador Option has been invoked in Iraq. This is the campaign of terror by death squads armed and trained by the US, which attack Sunnis and Shias alike. The goal is the incitement of a real civil war and the break-up of Iraq, the original war aim of Bush's administration. The ministry of the interior in Baghdad, which is run by the CIA, directs the principal death squads. Their members are not exclusively Shia, as the myth goes. The most brutal are the Sunni-led Special Police Commandos, headed by former senior officers in Saddam's Ba'ath Party. This unit was formed and trained by CIA "counter-insurgency" experts, including veterans of the CIA's terror operations in central America in the 1980s, notably El Salvador. In his new book, Empire's Workshop (Metropolitan Books), the American historian Greg Grandin describes the Salvador Option thus: "Once in office, [President] Reagan came down hard on central America, in effect letting his administration's most committed militarists set and execute policy. In El Salvador, they provided more than a million dollars a day to fund a lethal counter-insurgency campaign . . . All told, US allies in central America during Reagan's two terms killed over 300,000 people, tortured hundreds of thousands and drove millions into exile."
Although the Reagan administration spawned the current Bushites, or "neo-cons", the pattern was set earlier. In Vietnam, death squads trained, armed and directed by the CIA murdered up to 50,000 people in Operation Phoenix. In the mid-1960s in Indonesia CIA officers compiled "death lists" for General Suharto's killing spree during his seizure of power. After the 2003 invasion, it was only a matter of time before this venerable "policy" was applied in Iraq.
According to the investigative writer Max Fuller (National Review Online), the key CIA manager of the interior ministry death squads "cut his teeth in Vietnam before moving on to direct the US military mission in El Salvador". Professor Grandin names another central America veteran whose job now is to "train a ruthless counter-insurgent force made up of ex-Ba'athist thugs". Another, says Fuller, is well-known for his "production of death lists". A secret militia run by the Americans is the Facilities Protection Service, which has been responsible for bombings. "The British and US Special Forces," concludes Fuller, "in conjunction with the [US-created] intelligence services at the Iraqi defence ministry, are fabricating insurgent bombings of Shias."
On 16 March, Reuters reported the arrest of an American "security contractor" who was found with weapons and explosives in his car. Last year, two Britons disguised as Arabs were caught with a car full of weapons and explosives; British forces bulldozed the Basra prison to rescue them. The Boston Globe recently reported: "The FBI's counter-terrorism unit has launched a broad investigation of US-based theft rings after discovering that some of the vehicles used in deadly car bombings in Iraq, including attacks that killed US troops and Iraqi civilians, were probably stolen
in the United States, according to senior government officials."
As I say, all this has been tried before - just as the preparation of the American public for an atrocious attack on Iran is similar to the WMD fabrications in Iraq. If that attack comes, there will be no warning, no declaration of war, no truth. Imprisoned in the Hilton lift, staring at CNN, my fellow passengers could be excused for not making sense of the Middle East, or Latin America, or anywhere. They are isolated. Nothing is explained. Congress is silent. The Democrats are moribund. And the freest media on earth insult the public every day. As Voltaire put it: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Read more from the latest issue of the New Statesman
This article first appeared in the New Statesman. For the latest in current and cultural affairs subscribe to the New Statesman print edition.
![](/img/extlink.gif)
John Pilger
Comments
Hide the following 15 comments
make peace with Iraq’s neighbours and give rights to all Iraqis, including ethni
04.05.2006 21:10
"The goal is the incitement of a real civil war and the break-up of Iraq, the original war aim of Bush's administration. " (Pilger)
So, the document you cite doesn't discuss divide & rule but strategies to retain stability and boundaries and Pilger doesn't refer to the document or even British aims.
"CURENT OBJECTIVES OF UK POLICY
Within our objectives of preserving peace and stability in the Gulf and ensuring energy security, our current objectives towards Iraq are: • the reintegration of a law-abiding Iraq which does not possess WMD or threaten its neighbours, into the international community. Implicitly, this cannot occur with Saddam in power; and • hence, as the least worst option, we have supported containment of Iraq, by constraining Saddam’s ability to re-arm or build up WMD and to threaten his neighbours.
Subsidiary objectives are: • Preserving the territorial integrity of Iraq; • Improving the humanitarian situation of the Iraqi people; • Protecting the Kurds in Northern Iraq; • Sustaining UK/US co-operation, including, if necessary, by moderating US policy; and • Maintaining the credibility and authority of the Security Council." (Iraq Options)
"OPTION 3: A GROUND CAMPAIGN
The aim would be to launch a full-scale ground offensive to destroy Saddam]s [sic] military machine and remove him from power. A pro-Western regime would be installed which would destroy Iraq’s WMD capability, make peace with Iraq’s neighbours and give rights to all Iraqis, including ethnic minorities. As in the Gulf War this would need to be preceded by a major air-offensive to soften up defences [sic]." (Iraq Options)
The remarkable thing about Iraq Options was that the concept of regime change is illegal under international law. And that they are mooting imposing another Sunni dictator. Simple as that.
Again you make a laughing stock of yourself.
"REGIME CHANGE
In considering the options for regime change below, we need to first consider what sort of Iraq we want? There are two possibilities: • a Sunni military strongman. We would be likely to maintain Iraqi territorial integrity. Assistance with reconstruction and political rehabilitation could be traded for assurances on abandoning WMD programmes and respecting human rights, particularly of ethnic minorities. The US and other militaries could withdraw quickly. However, there would then be a strong risk of the Iraqi system reverting to type. Military coup could succeed coup until an autocratic, Sunni dictator emerged who protected Sunni interest. With time he could acquire WMD; or • a representative broadly democratic government. This would be Sunni-led but, within a federal structure, the Kurds would be guaranteed autonomy and the Shia fair access to government. Such a regime would be less likely to develop WMD and threaten its neighbours. However, to survive it would require the US and others to commit to nation building for many years. This would entail a substantial international security force and help with reconstruction." (Iraq Options)
"Last year, two Britons disguised as Arabs were caught with a car full of weapons and explosives" (Pilger)
Innacurate. Their dress hardly constituted any elaborate disguise and there has never been any corroboraation of explosives being found.
"The FBI's counter-terrorism unit has launched a broad investigation of US-based theft rings after discovering that some of the vehicles used in deadly car bombings in Iraq, including attacks that killed US troops and Iraqi civilians, were probably stolen in the United States, according to senior government officials." (Pilger)
Can it be demonstrated there is a solid link?
"Again, the media sleeps on the issue, even though Documentary Evidence proves this." (You)
Cough it up then!
Do you read any of this stuff or just accept Alex Jones' interpretation of them?
Guess who?
Yer Funny, Plant
05.05.2006 00:08
Actually, the authors use those very words. Did you not read it?
"Last year, two Britons disguised as Arabs were caught with a car full of weapons and explosives" (Pilger)
"Innacurate."
Not at all. Perhaps you only briefly viewed the mainstream media's accounts, on the day after the event. The dress, and the fact that they were found with explosive devices, were omitted by the media.
Photographs of the devices were displayed by the Iraqi police ...
You really ARE a Damage Control op, aren't you?
"The FBI's counter-terrorism unit has launched a broad investigation of US-based theft rings after discovering that some of the vehicles used in deadly car bombings in Iraq, including attacks that killed US troops and Iraqi civilians, were probably stolen in the United States, according to senior government officials." (Pilger)
"Can it be demonstrated there is a solid link?"
Yes, investigators have linked the cars. That's why Pilger cites the cases.
You should also take into account the high number of reports by Iraqi civilians who had their cars wired with explosives while stopped at US chechpoints. On two of the occasions corroborated by Iraqi Police, the men were told that their papers had somehow been transfered to an Iraqi Police station, and that they'd have to drive there to pick them up.
Next time you hear a report of a "suicide bombing" at one of these stations - Wed. night, for instance - keep this in mind.
"Again, the media sleeps on the issue, even though Documentary Evidence proves this."
"Cough it up then!"
"just accept Alex Jones' interpretation"
Man, you're obsessed. Did this guy steal your fiance or something ... ?
The fact remains that enough Documentary Evidence exists to prove that the Bush/PNAC/Bliar plans for Iraq were anything but noble. They constituted "the highest International Crime", and warrant arrest and conviction.
I would offer that the BILLIONS stolen from the Iraqi People be paid back as part of the punishment for these crimes as well, even though large sums have already been spent on bribing Iraqi officials, and carrying out illegal Covert Operations in Iran, Syria (Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker), and who knows where else?
Divide & Conquer: Iraqis Are Still Wise To The Trick
English lesson
05.05.2006 06:53
"The internal opposition [to Saddam- duh!] is small and fractured on ethnic and sectarian grounds. There is no effective Sunni Arab opposition. There are 3-4m Kurds in northern Iraq. Most live in the Kurdish Autonomous Zone, established in 1991. The Kurds deploy at least 40,000 lightly armed militia but are divided between two main parties, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP). These groups have an interest in preserving the status quo and are more interested in seeking advantage over the other than allying against Saddam [Hello!]. Divide and rule is easy; in 1996 the KDP assisted the Iraqi Army’s expulsion of the PUK and Iraqi opposition groups from [A]rbil. "
Anyone who has the patience to read the document being discussed will notice that "divide & rule" refers to Saddam's retwhile tactics RE: the Kurdish region, citing a historiacl precedent.
And once again from the same document:
"CURENT OBJECTIVES OF UK POLICY
Within our objectives of preserving peace and stability in the Gulf and ensuring energy security, our current objectives towards Iraq are: • the reintegration of a law-abiding Iraq which does not possess WMD or threaten its neighbours, into the international community. Implicitly, this cannot occur with Saddam in power; and • hence, as the least worst option, we have supported containment of Iraq, by constraining Saddam’s ability to re-arm or build up WMD and to threaten his neighbours.
Subsidiary objectives are: • Preserving the territorial integrity of Iraq; • Improving the humanitarian situation of the Iraqi people; • Protecting the Kurds in Northern Iraq; • Sustaining UK/US co-operation, including, if necessary, by moderating US policy; and • Maintaining the credibility and authority of the Security Council."
Okay, next on the list of rubbish:
So, you have no solid links between the alleged car thefts and the car bombings as you obviously don't with your tales of checkpoint booby traps.
Again...
"Again, the media sleeps on the issue, even though Documentary Evidence proves this." (You)
Cough it up then!
____
"Man, you're obsessed. Did this guy [Alex Jones] steal your fiance or something ... ?"
Erm, I'm not the one slavishly spamming his paranoid unfounded crap all over IMC UK.
I thought you were his fiancee... or is it Jack? Or do you have a Sartre thing going on?
Spook Plant
Basra twaddle... again, sigh!
05.05.2006 07:41
No, I have looked at as many sources as I could possibly find. There was one very vague story on some Chinese News site and a few single-sourced rehashes of that story.
So what type of explosive was recovered and how were they prepped?
"Photographs of the devices were displayed by the Iraqi police ..."
Yeah, that's what Alex Jones told you. But he's a liar. Show me a photograph of explosives. I can only find pictures of machine guns, rounds, radios, a laser targetting marker, shoulder launch RPG... and other standard SAS equipment. Point out the explosives for us.
But you know fine well this Basra conspiracy theory is total fantasy, you've been put right on this subject many times.
Spook Plant
Readers Should Peruse The Documents For Themselves
05.05.2006 17:53
The document is Documentary Evidence of US/UK illegal activity.
The media sleeps on the issue.
Considering the documented history of the US military - and especially of the people controlling it now - I cannot fathom any other reason for you to doubt the reports of their covert activities in Iraq, many of which have been positivelt corroborated, except that you are here for the sole purpose of providing White Noise and silence debate.
Everything you post here is suspect.
Thanks, All The Same, Plant
...
06.05.2006 02:08
Spook Plant
Re: Spook Droppings
07.05.2006 00:02
Get lost, Plant ...
Old Colonial Trick
...
07.05.2006 06:45
Get some literacy lessons Jordan.
Spook Plant
Divide & Rule
07.05.2006 22:28
These US/UK-trained and funded death squads are just the surface of what's occuring, and follow a consistent pattern of US military occupations since WWII.
US/UK Criminal, Immoral Activities
Okay
07.05.2006 23:50
Spook Plant
I Don't Need To Satisfy You, Plant
09.05.2006 01:44
The rest can also be viewed at the afterdowningstreet site.
The documents in question clearly lay out a plan for dividing Iraqis along ethnic lines, fomenting Civil War, so that the US/UK can plunder the country while its people are busy killing each other. What you're referring to are some of the Tactics they've studied along the way (and don't forget, Saddam was for most of his rule, their man in Baghdad ...).
These US/UK-trained and funded death squads are just the surface of what's occuring, and follow a consistent pattern of US military occupations since WWII.
Old Colonial Trick
In other words...
09.05.2006 04:18
Like I said.
Another one of lies or "disinformations".
Stop wasting our time.
Spook Plant
Doing your work for you again, sigh!
09.05.2006 08:28
(1)Saddam has a strong grip on power maintained through fear and patronage. The security and intelligence apparatus, including the Republican and Special Republican Guard, who protect the regime so effectively are predominantly drawn from the Arab Sunni minority (20-25 per cent of the population); many from Tikrit like Saddam. They fear non-Sunni rule, which would bring retribution and the end of their privileges. The regime’s success in defeating the 1991 uprising stemmed from senior Sunni officers looking into the abyss of Shia rule and preserving their interests by backing Saddam. In the current circumstances, a military revolt or coup is a remote possibility.
(2)Unaided, the Iraqi opposition [A+B] is incapable of overthrowing the regime. The external [B] opposition is weak, divided and lacks domestic credibility. The predominant group [B]in the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella organization led by Ahmad Ghalabi, a Shia and convicted fraudster, popular on Capitol Hill. The other major group [B], the Iraqi National Accord (INA), espouses moderate Arab Socialism and is led by another Shia, Ayad Allawi. Neither group [B] has a military capability and both are badly penetrated by Iraqi Intelligence. In 1996, a CIA attempt to still opposition groups ended in wholesale executions. Most Iraqis see the INC/INA as Western Stooges.
(3)The internal opposition [A] is small and fractured on ethnic and sectarian grounds. There is no effective Sunni Arab opposition [A]. There are 3-4m Kurds in northern Iraq. Most live in the Kurdish Autonomous Zone, established in 1991. The Kurds deploy at least 40,000 lightly armed militia but are divided between two main parties [A], the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP). These groups [A] have an interest in preserving the status quo and are more interested in seeking advantage over the other than allying against Saddam. Divide and rule is easy; in 1996 the KDP assisted the Iraqi Army’s expulsion of the PUK and Iraqi opposition groups from Irbil.
(4)The Kurds do not co-operate with the Shia Arabs who form 60 per cent of the population. The main Shia opposition group is the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) with 3-5,000 fighters, but it is tainted by Iranian support. Most Shia would like to have a greater say in Iraqi government, but not necessarily control: they do not want secession, Islamic autonomy or Iranian Influence.
REGIONAL
____
This section is clearly an appraisal of the strength of Iraqi opposition to Saddam in/outside Iraq. I have inserted markers to indicate superordinate groups of [A] internal opposition to Saddam and [B] external opposition (i.e. Ex-patriot).
The section examines the opposition to Saddam across ethnic lines as quite simply that is how it is organised; how it could interact or not as an oppositional force.
(1)Outlines Saddam's power base and the ethnic demographic.
(2)Outlines the strength and credibility of Iraqi opposition to Saddam externally
(3)Internally Kurdish
(4)Internally Shia
These considerations then inform the options to over throw the Hussein regime:
OPTION 1: COVERT SUPPORT TO OPPOSITION GROUPS
“The aim would be to bring down the regime byinternal [sic] revolt, aided by the defection or at least acquiescence of large sections of the Army. A group of Sunni generals probably from within the Republican Guard, might depose Saddam if they decided the alternative was defeat. This option could be pursued by providing covert intelligence, large scale financial and Special Forces support to opposition groups. The Kurds would be persuaded to unite and attack into Northern Iraq, trying down some Iraqi forces. Simultaneously, in a greater threat to the regime, the Shia would rise up in the southern cities, and in Baghdad. “
OPTION 2: AN AIR CAMPAING PROVIDING OVERT SUPPORT TO OPPOSITION GROUPS LEADING TO A COUP OR UPRISING
“The aim would be to assist an internal revolt by providing strategic and tactical air support for opposition groups to move against the regime. Such support would disable Saddam’s military and security apparatus. Suspected WMD facilities would also be targeted. Substantial numbers of aircraft and munitions would need to be built up in theatre over a period of months. Any campaign would take several weeks at least probably several months. Pressure on the regime could be increased by massing ground and naval forces and threatening a land invasion. “
___
(Interestingly, that last sentence could indicate why the build up and engagement was so slow.)
So basically, you are talking right out your arse as usual. Point out where it indicates a planned civil war between ethnic groups... and I'll show you a liar- again.
If you beg to differ on my observations, you should follow suit in your methodology- any old foll can just gainsay a conclusion.
Now, where are the “other documents” that back up your claims then? Might as well get those over and done with too, no?
The funny thing is you missed possibly the most interesting sentence in the whole document:
“We have looked at three options for achieving regime change (we dismissed assassination of Saddam Hussein as an option because it would be illegal): “
It would seem that someone seriously entertained the concept of an assassination. Which is very much illegal under UK law. Why else would this be mentioned???
Spook Plant
P.S.
09.05.2006 08:37
Spook Plant
Again
10.05.2006 13:01
Spook Plant