Salvation Movement

Good and Bad News as usual from Iraq.

Most promising (in a wierd way) is the emergence of the Salvation Movement, which threatens to kill Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi if he doesn't leave Iraq.

A group of armed, masked Iraqi men threatened Tuesday to kill Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi if he did not immediately leave the country, accusing him of murdering innocent Iraqis and defiling the Muslim religion.

The threats revealed the deep anger many Iraqis, including insurgent groups, feel toward foreign fighters, whom many consider as illegitimate a presence here as the 160,000 U.S. and other coalition troops.

In a videotape sent to the al-Arabiya television station, a group calling itself the "Salvation Movement," questioned how al-Zarqawi could use Islam to justify the killing of innocent civilians, the targeting of government officials and the kidnapping and beheading of foreigners.

"He must leave Iraq immediately, he and his followers and everyone who gives shelter to him and his criminal actions," said a man on the video.

Although the vigilante structure of this group should not be encouraged obviously, the sentiments they espouse are certainly encouraging. And of course, cynic that I am, I do have to at least wonder just how independent the Salvation Movement is of, oh I don't know, the CIA perhaps? All in all though, a worthy message to hear from Iraqis.

Again, wholly encouraging.

On the bad news front, the safehouse bombing campaign in Fallujah is getting piss-poor intelligence it would seem:

On Monday, U.S forces dropped two tons of bombs on a purported militant safe house in Fallujah, killing 15 members of one family, according to witnesses, and turning the building into a 30-foot-deep pit of sand and rubble.

The Fallujah attack was the fifth airstrike in the past two weeks in the area where the U.S. military says al-Zarqawi's network has safe houses.

Rescue workers in Fallujah picked up body parts after the U.S. airstrike, witnesses said. Video from Associated Press Television News showed the explosion had thrown bricks blocks away. Blood was splashed on a nearby wall.

Men gathered at the pit where the house had been and pulled out clothes, including a young child's shirt, from the rubble.

"Is this acceptable to the Iraqi government?" asked an angry man at the scene, who declined to identify himself. "Where are human rights?"

Yasser Abed, 17, said 15 members of his family, including 12 children, were killed in the air strike. Abed, his father and a brother were out of the house at the time of the attack, he said. Hospital officials said at least 10 people were killed. Previous U.S. air strikes in Fallujah have killed dozens.

At least we can't blame the US for the piss-poor intel, though:

Allawi issued an unprecedented statement saying his government provided intelligence for the location of the al-Zarqawi safe house so the strike could "terminate those terrorists, whose booby-trapped cars and explosive belts have harvested the souls of innocent Iraqis without discrimination, destroying Iraqi schools, hospitals and police stations."

I suspect Allawi is getting the very best spin lessons US tax dollars can buy as well. No mention of the 12 children. No assessment of how good the intelligence was. Apparently "it was a safe house" is good enough so that no further questions need be asked and no clear indication of what role those children played in the insurgency need be clarified.

This is wholly discouraging.

Comments

[double-plus-ungood]

Although the vigilante structure of this group should not be encouraged obviously, the sentiments they espouse are certainly encouraging. And of course, cynic that I am, I do have to at least wonder just how independent the Salvation Movement is of, oh I don't know, the CIA perhaps? All in all though, a worthy message to hear from Iraqis.

Um, Edward? Deathsquad?

That certainly didn't take long. Negroponte has been there for only a week.

[Edward]

Um, Edward? Deathsquad?

Negroponte! Sorry about not putting that together. You're so right.

Now that I'm fully caffienated it seems obvious.

Good God that's a scary thought.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Movement to kill civilians--insurgents

Movement to kill terrorists--death squads

I think I got the proper conjugation of that one.

[Edward]

There's a positive connotation on "insurgents" in your conjugation that isn't backed up by anything other than a desire to use parallelism here Sebastian.

Who ever said the "insurgents" were in any way better than a "death squad"?

It's the idea that this "homegrown" movement has Negroponte's trademark stamped on it that is alarming, not the idea that an insurgent who's already killed civilians might in turn be killed.

If Negroponte is already organizing efforts like this, how "sovereign" really is Iraq?

[double-plus-ungood]

Jeez Seb, you missed the mark on that one.

Movement to kill civilians -- DEATH SQUADS

Shadowy underground movement claiming to defend their country through assassination and other extra-legal means -- TERRORISTS

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

So far as I have seen here, all 'evidence' that the group is anything other than homegrown is purely speculation.

One of the key problems in dealing with Middle East terrorism has been that there are some localities which protect the terrorists. If this is the beginning of the end of that, I'm thrilled.

++UnGood, do you notice that you are calling al-Zarqawi a civilian in your equation? Is that intentional or just a case of rhetoric flying out of control?

[double-plus-ungood]

++UnGood, do you notice that you are calling al-Zarqawi a civilian in your equation? Is that intentional or just a case of rhetoric flying out of control?

Are you suggesting that he's a soldier? Terrorists, by definition, are civilians. And they haven't just threatened to kill him, they've also threatened to murder anyone that they think supports him.

Look, everyone knows that fighting terrorists is a difficult thing. Whether it can be done without resorting to means that Hussein would have used is the real test as to whether this adminstration and its supporters were ever very serious about Shifting Iraq War Rationale #52, bringing democracy to the country. In my books, either creating, supporting, or cheering on this kind of "group" is a very bad sign indeed.

And, of course, you're right that I'm speculating about Negroponte's hand in this. But the timing is a bit too coincidental, and usually deathsquads are run on the sly. We're not too likely to see much evidence, at least not for a few years. So I'm going to just go ahead and assume that he's somehow involved. That's the risk that a president takes when he appoints an ambassador with a history of organizing death squads.

[Cameron]

If the people on that video can carry out their declaration, allow me to be one of the people to say "Happy Hunting!"

[Tacitus]

Not to point out the obvious, but simply accepting the locals' word for it that a family was slaughtered, etc., isn't terrifically sound policy.

Dunno if you've read what they've been doing to journalists they dislike in Fallujah lately. Gasoline and mobs are involved.

[Gary Farber]

If Negroponte is already organizing efforts like this, how "sovereign" really is Iraq?

Edward, I'm as skeptical of Negroponte as the next guy, but I have two observations: 1) organizing a "death squad" in a week" is quite an expression of efficiency; c) are you going to immediately move from "if" to "it is so, and I needn't supply any further evidence of that when asked"?

Because it's just a speculation. What do you think of what Juan Cole and Matthew Yglesias wrote about the Afghan pipeline speculation? (Probably makes more sense to pick that up back at the F911 thread that's hanging.)

[Macallan]

Michael Moore call your office.

[Gary Farber]

"double-plus-ungood" wrote:

That's the risk that a president takes when he appoints an ambassador with a history of organizing death squads.

I happen to be pretty well read on the subject of Latin American death squads, and closely followed the events and topic at the time.

And this is silly. No one ever claimed Negroponte "organized" death squads. What he was credibly accused of doing, and almost certainly did, was tolerate death squads, excuse death squads, pretend death squads didn't exist, minimize death squads, and fight attempts to do anything about death squads.

I can supply plenty of credible documentation of that. If you can supply any credible documentation at all from a source that isn't a tin-foil one that he organized death squads, I'd like to see it. Meantime I will consider this an outrageously sloppy construction that works out to being a complete untruth.

It's important to, you know, not do that. Someone with your nom-de-plume should be especially aware of that.

[double-plus-ungood]

Gary, I don't think that Negroponte was pulling on a ski mask in the evenings and heading out with the boys. But I suspect that it went a little beyond just tolerating them. But I could be wrong, and I certainly don't have evidence, so I will withdraw the statement.

Even so, isn't tolerating death squads, denying that death squads exist, fighting efforts to get rid of death squads, and all the rest pretty bad?

One would assume that the Bush administration knows the man is tainted with his Honduran experience, and that there would be some political fallout when appointing him. I would have to wonder what it is about Negroponte that makes that fallout an acceptable cost. Could it be that he has a history of getting a tough job done, and Iraq is currently a tough job? And, if death squads do become a black-ops tactic in fighting the insurgency and the terrorists in Iraq, what would that look like?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Terrorists, by definition, are civilians."

Hardly. Terrorists are among the class of combatants who don't wear uniforms. That doesn't make them civilians any more than an undercover Army officer who is infiltrating enemy territory and not wearing a uniform.

(And for the record neither would be protected by the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of captured soldiers for that very reason).

[double-plus-ungood]

Hardly. Terrorists are among the class of combatants who don't wear uniforms. That doesn't make them civilians any more than an undercover Army officer who is infiltrating enemy territory and not wearing a uniform.

From the CIA FAQ on Terrorism (from Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d)):

The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.

The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

Nothing about combatants.

[Gary Farber]

But I suspect that it went a little beyond just tolerating them.

He obviously had plenty of contact with those indirectly responsible with them, and depending upon precisely what one's definition of "directly responsible" is, by most definitions, with those as well. And gave some range of tacit support and approval, or, at least, sufficient neutrality as to amount to a continued signal of non-interference in those activities.

I merely note that this is not at all the same as "created." It's part of the great arrogance of Americans to assume that nothing can be created by others, and, as I've noted here before, the left is just as blind and arrogant in that assumption as anyone else. We didn't "create" the right-wing Colombia "militias" (thugs), either, but that doesn't mean they aren't deeply evil bastards.

Even so, isn't tolerating death squads, denying that death squads exist, fighting efforts to get rid of death squads, and all the rest pretty bad?

No sh--, er, why, yes. Do you really feel the need to ask if I approve of murdering nuns, slaughtering tens of thousands of people, and what happened in El Salvador and Guatemala? Apparently so.

Why do you think I blogged this, do you think? (I recommend the linked article, though, as I said, I was closely following events as they happened back in the Eighties, specifically including Kinzer's reports.)

[double-plus-ungood]

No sh--, er, why, yes. Do you really feel the need to ask if I approve of murdering nuns, slaughtering tens of thousands of people, and what happened in El Salvador and Guatemala? Apparently so.

No, of course not, although it might be necessary for others. But the first part of your comment made my question redundant.

[Slartibartfast]

although it might be necessary for others

Postulating the existence of people like this isn't really an on-topic discussion. Unless you've got some specific others in mind, in which case feel free to share.

[double-plus-ungood]

Postulating the existence of people like this isn't really an on-topic discussion. Unless you've got some specific others in mind, in which case feel free to share.

There seems to be quite a few blogs today thinking that this kind of group, which meets every definition of "death squad", is a wonderful blow in the fight against terror. No-one seems to be considering that fact that this group is actually a terrorist group.

Love your Fjords in Norway, btw.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Good heavens, ++UnGood, the CIA definition you quote doesn't say anything about terrorists being 'civilians' either.

But yes, for the record I am willing to note that in your opinion the proper classification of al-Zarqawi is 'civilian'.

While we are failing to draw distinctions, I also note that 'vigilante group willing to kill' and 'death squad' are not synonymous notions in the normal description of either idea. Some Western moral codes might be able to notice a difference between killing al-Zarqawi and strangling nuns whose main function is providing food to the poor.

[double-plus-ungood]

While we are failing to draw distinctions, I also note that 'vigilante group willing to kill' and 'death squad' are not synonymous notions in the normal description of either idea.

From the Wikipedia article on death squads:

A death squad is an extra-judicial group whose members execute or assassinate persons they believe to be politically unreliable or undesirable.

Some Western moral codes might be able to notice a difference between killing al-Zarqawi and strangling nuns whose main function is providing food to the poor.

And some Western moral codes might note that groups like this who lack accountability and display an unwillingness to follow legal procedures in a quest for a political end might start out by just killing terrorists, then suspected terrorists, then move to kidnapping, torturing, and murdering relatives of terrorists, then those who support them, then those suspected of supporting them, then those who are merely anti-occupation. This is why we don't tolerate those who use these means in our own society. Why applaud them in another?

Would there be much alarm if a group like this assassinated al-Sadr?

[Slartibartfast]

I too am a little unclear about the existence of a cheering section for nun-murderers.

Look: there's at least a minor difference between a bunch of civilians acting in self-defense (especially when conventional forces aren't doing the trick), and squads of men rounding up and killing people for the crime of disagreeing with their point of view.

Hence, I'd strongly disapprove of Michael Moore being captured, tortured and publicly beheaded for his views, while I'd be slightly in favor of Yassir Arafat being taken out by a group of Israelis who are sick and tired of having their kids killed by exploding Palestinians. Maybe this puts me squarely in your "others" camp; so be it.

[double-plus-ungood]

Look: there's at least a minor difference between a bunch of civilians acting in self-defense (especially when conventional forces aren't doing the trick), and squads of men rounding up and killing people for the crime of disagreeing with their point of view.

Would you be comfortable if a bunch of hooded guys with rifles in your neighbourhood announced that they were going to clean up the place because the police and courts aren't doing their jobs? Then issued death threats against known criminals?

[Gary Farber]

...while I'd be slightly in favor of Yassir Arafat being taken out by a group of Israelis who are sick and tired of having their kids killed by exploding Palestinians.

I wouldn't favor that at all, myself. I think the repercussions would be very bad, in sufficiently large number of ways that I won't even begin to list them, but not greatly less than would be Sharon "being taken out by a group of Palestinians who are sick and tired of having their kids killed by exploding missiles from tanks and helicopters, along with bullets."

This isn't to make a moral equivalence between either Sharon and Arafat, or suicide bombers attacking discos & pregnant women and the Israeli uniformed military accidentally hitting people with shells. It's to state that the practical results would be very hard on the innocent on both sides, and I don't believe the Israeli cabinet would disagree with that evaluation. And if they decide to kill Arafat, they're going to think the way to do it is to have the IDF do it, not some civilian vigilantes.

The converse thinking is what led to Israeli civilians "taking out" Yitzhak Rabin. After all, he was a "traitor" whose policies led to the deaths of Israeli kids, you know. They were "sick and tired." So that made it okay.

[Slartibartfast]

The converse thinking is what led to Israeli civilians "taking out" Yitzhak Rabin. After all, he was a "traitor" whose policies led to the deaths of Israeli kids, you know. They were "sick and tired." So that made it okay.

Except for the minor detail that Rabin wasn't actively calling for the deaths of Israeli kids, I'd agree.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

++UnGood, in your hypothetical are these guys correct about the police not doing their jobs (either by choice or otherwise), or are they using it as a pretext to commit murder based on race-hate? And what do you mean by 'known criminal'? Are we talking about suspicion of jaywalking or are we talking about self-professed indiscriminate bombing and beheading of civilians. It might change my answer.

[double-plus-ungood]

SH: well, let's take a more concrete example. Supposing that tomorrow these guys decide to machine gun al-Sadr as "a present" to the Iraqi people. What would you think of that?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Al-Sadr can be easily found by the police if they want him so I would have a problem with vigilantes seeing the need to go after him at this point.

[double-plus-ungood]

Al-Sadr can be easily found by the police if they want him so I would have a problem with vigilantes seeing the need to go after him at this point.

Hmm. Well, as I doubt these guys will be any more successful at finding al-Zarqawi than the Iraqi authorities and the occupation forces have been, I guess we'll have to wait and see who they turn their guns and bombs on. They may decide that the government is prevented from dealing with certain political forces because of that pesky constitution, and take matters into their own hands. That, after all, is the privilige of groups working outside the law.

[Slartibartfast]

Odd, that it's perfectly ok for al-Zarqawi to murder innocents, but as soon as anyone else picks up a gun and pointedly demands that he leave the country (without any actual shooting occurring), ++!good is upset.

[double-plus-ungood]

Odd, that it's perfectly ok for al-Zarqawi to murder innocents, but as soon as anyone else picks up a gun and pointedly demands that he leave the country (without any actual shooting occurring), ++!good is upset.

Well, let me explain it.

...it's perfectly ok for al-Zarqawi to murder innocents...

I never said that, do not think that, nor did I imply it. If you said this in error, I suggest that you should slow down while reading comments. If intentional, then it's a sleazy way to debate.

...but as soon as anyone else picks up a gun and pointedly demands that he leave the country (without any actual shooting occurring), ++!good is upset.

This kind of vigilantism, if that's what it is and not something more sinister, is a greater threat to democracy than terrorism, in my opinion. And it's exactly the kind of response that terrorism aims to produce. Anonymous underground groups killing people they think are a threat without the accountability of judicial process INCREASES the amount of instability in a society, and does not decrease it.

I'm astonished that I have to explain my concerns about a group of masked assassins threatening to kill people they THINK are terrorists. I'm even more astonished that if I do so, some people think that means that I'm on the side of terrorism. And as I'm seriously pissed off about words being shoved in my mouth, I shall stop here, and sip my coffee, and attempt to regain a sense of harmony.

Serentiy now. Serenity now.

[double-plus-ungood]

BTW, about the name of this group. Any bets that the name actually translates as "The Salvation Army?"

[Slartibartfast]

I'm astonished that I have to explain my concerns about a group of masked assassins threatening to kill people they THINK are terrorists.

I suppose they've got no reason at all for thinking that. And...assassins? Who have they assassinated?

This kind of vigilantism, if that's what it is and not something more sinister, is a greater threat to democracy than terrorism, in my opinion.

I disagree completely. People rising up to defend themselves from threats to their liberty is an early sign of democracy, not a threat to it.

As for the "sleazy debate tactics" bit...well, this isn't debate club. Nor is this a debate. If you in fact don't hold al-Zarqawi in higher moral regard than a group of guys waving guns on TV, I retract and apologize.

[double-plus-ungood]

If you in fact don't hold al-Zarqawi in higher moral regard than a group of guys waving guns on TV, I retract and apologize.

Thank you.