Surge or Splurge Redux

Surge or Splurge Redux

By Jamie McIntyre Wednesday, December 9th, 2009 4:34 pm
Posted in On War

Paying off the enemy to switch sides worked in Iraq, why not Afghanistan?

Last year, when I was still at CNN, my then-producer Laurie Ure and I collaborated on a story we called “Surge or Splurge.” At the time the U.S. military was using cold hard cash to try to lure fence-sitters on the side of the U.S. backed government.

I see Laurie has picked up on that theme again with her recent CNN blog post on payments in Afghanistan.


Defense Secretary Robert Gates meets with Commanders in Afghanistan, Dec. 8, 2009 - Combat Camera Photo

Defense Secretary Robert Gates in Afghanistan, Dec. 8, 2009 — Combat Camera Photo

I would note that back in March of 2008, Laurie and I had a healthy skepticism about the scheme, and we quoted a long-time critic of then Iraq-commander Gen. David Petraeus, Retired Army Col. Doug Macgregor as saying “Normally when you begin paying off your enemy on the scale that we are, it is seen by your enemy as well as others as a tacit admission of failure, not of success”

But I think time has proven Col. Macgregor wrong on this one.   The payments, along with a whole lot of other factors, have calmed things down in Iraq, although the country is a long way from being at peace, and the recent Baghdad bombing show.

“What we’ve done is we’ve also flooded the Sunni-Arab insurgents with cash to create a temporary cease-fire to reduce the numbers of U.S. casualties,” Col. Macgregor said at the time. But I have to say, the cash-for-peace scheme may not have turned the war around in Iraq, but it doesn’t seem to have backfired, at least not yet.

I see some signs of hope in Afghanistan, but it still looks like a mess that’s not getting better anytime soon.  I hope I’m wrong. The great thing about being a pessimist is that you go through life either being proven right, or pleasantly surprised.

What do YOU think?


Tags: , , ,

Join the Conversation

Lance December 10th, 2009 at 10:33 pm

I don’t feel that this is a good idea. When I was in Iraq, It was nothing for an Iraqi to throw a brother under a bus for a bottle of water or an MRE. If desperate enough, I believe they will tell the soliders whatever they want to hear for a ten dollar bill, plus I think you are running a chance of the insurgents getting their hands on that money buy telling our soliders just enough to keep the money coming in but not enough so that they are caught themselves. Also, if the insurgents catch drift of a local civilian getting money for intel, you are risking a chance of the civilian being taxed by the insurgents. The insurgent will spare this civilians life as long as the civilian hands over the money to the insurgent, and gives soliders intel that is provided by the insurgent, puting our soliders lives in danger. All in all I think you are risking the chance of pumping free money into the hands of the insurgents.

Kyle York December 10th, 2009 at 11:47 pm

LANCE has STUCK IT, a perfect 10. Especially from the Russian judge.
We armed the Mujahadeed so they could shoot our own. We armed the Sunnis rented per diem for “The Surge” and now the lead is coming back as they shoot our own. We arm the corrupt Afghan troops so they can join US troops on patrol, only to turn and kill our own. We didn’t “break” this travesty of a Nation-State. God forgive us for every bloody day we squander trying to “own” its love and allegiance. Far better to double-down on our last stand to stop the Communist dominoes at Hue. Better yet to walk away from the grave sold to an angry America in the guise of a Crusade.

Bill December 11th, 2009 at 4:10 pm

Thank God these issues are being decided by the likes of Jim Jones, Dave Petraeus, Hillary Clinton, Karl Eikenberry, Stanley McChrystal and President Obama and not reporters, pundits or other types of ivory tower hip-shooters. There is always “risk” in anything that you do, even mundane everyday things. To say that there is “risk” is a way of trying to get out from under the bigger task of being successful. You can bt that all of the risks have been carefully weighed with this team that we now have in charge.

shaun December 30th, 2009 at 5:35 pm

note; the people being paid off are not the hardcore islamists, but those they recruit to do the dirtywork or “fence sitters”. That’s morally acceptable. Paying off the puppetmasters, the true idealogues, would be questionable.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement