American literature: Here's an Army handbook published last year called "A Commander's Guide to Money as a Weapons System." A lot of it is about buying Iraqi and Afghan allegiance. I'm a realist, by the way; I'm not against buyouts. But how can you publish this and also say that you're going to stop the Afghans from growing poppies? Excerpts:
“Money is my most important ammunition in this war.”
—MG David Petraeus, 101st Airborne Division Air Assault
Warfighters at brigade, battalion, and company level in a counterinsurgency
(COIN) environment employ money as a weapons system to win the hearts and minds of the indigenous population to facilitate defeating the insurgents. Money is one of the primary weapons used by warfighters to achieve successful mission results in COIN and humanitarian operations....• There are three types of monetary reward levels within the Multi-National
Corps–I DOD Rewards Program:
º Micro-rewards. Less than or equal to $500 for information per
incident; $1K a month available per company; commanders can
pay rewards for information received on the spot.
º Small rewards. Greater than $500 but equal to or less than $10K;
payouts are for high-value individuals (HVI) (terror cell leaders,
terrorist financiers, and smugglers) or weapons caches, as the
theater, division, or brigade combat team commander deems
appropriate.
º Large rewards. Greater than $10K; payouts of over $10K are for
the capture of HVIs, large weapon caches that significantly reduce
the effectiveness of a terror cell, and other pre-approved rewards
of similar significance (capture of foreign fighters or the abductor
of a U.S. Servicemember).
Thanks to Patricia Storace for smart get.
No wonder this country is going bankrupt.
Maybe Petreaus should look up the history of the Danegeld. It was the payment made by the weakling kings of Saxon England to keep the vikings from ravaging the country. It was first made by the notoriously weak Aethelred the Redeless, who knew no other way of defending his land.
The Romans tried the same thing to buy off the barbarians menacing the borders of their empire.
And both the Saxon kingdom of England and the Roman empire fell to invasion. Good precedent, Betrayus.
“I’m a realist, by the way; I’m not against buyouts. “
So as a “realist” you support the war on Iraq and the war on Afghanistan?
Good question, Mooser. Who should be bribed for the greater good of all? Where does Phil stand on this?
The US is against the poppy growing business because it gives the local “tribal leaders” financial independence.
That’s a no no in imperial strategy.
The occupied must always depend on the occupier, much in the same way industrial factories among Palestinians in Israel were boycotted by the Israeli Jewish markets in the 70s and 80s while the Jewish industries were subsidized in an effort to turn the Palestinians in Israel into a labor force, dependent on the Jewish sector for livelihood.