Iraq: 3,000 High-Risk Detainees

As the Obama administration starts drawing down troops in Iraq and relocating them in Afghanistan many unsolved problems linger in the balance. The most crucial issue (for Iraq) is what the U.S. Military will do with approximately 18,500 Iraqi detainees still in custody. The current plan is to begin releasing them over to Iraqi jurisdiction. If these prisoners, when freed, return to terrorist activity it will be the biggest road block to a stable democracy in Iraq -- if that's even possible.

A very large majority of Iraqi detainees have been unnecessarily imprisoned. However, many real hardliner terrorists have been captured. There is no doubt that many of these terrorists will reenter terrorist networks and begin killing again.

The Iraqi Judicial System's criteria for a conviction requires that either the defendant confess to his crime or at least 2 eye witnesses testify for prosecution. As it stands the Iraqi Judicial system mandates no forensic evidence to obtain a conviction.

Iraqi detainees have been classified into two categories: low-risk and high-risk. The low-risk detainees are the paid trigger pullers and bomb planters who we feel can be rehabilitated. The high-risk detainees are no nonsense jihadists.

It has been reported that the U.S. military currently has 3,000 high-risk detainees in custody.

Brigadier General Robert Kenyon, who runs the Iraqi detainee center at Camp Cropper, said:

many of those 3,000 men will go free unless the United States can persuade Iraqi judges to loosen their traditional rules that require two witnesses or a confession to convict someone.

The premium now for the Iraqi government is to pressure Nouri al-Maliki to let these guys walk. After all, the detainees' original motives were to kill Americans, not Iraqis. Civil war was the result. If Maliki doesn't comply how will the Iraqi government get criminal convictions? In some of the more corrupt Iraqi Judicial Districts two men could be pulled off the street and told "okay, you're the witnesses for the prosecution." Believe me; it's not too far fetched.

The Iraqis hate housing prisoners. Their idea, for the most part, is to either execute the prisoners, torture them, or let them go. So it's highly probable that these 3,000 terrorists will be released back into circulation and they're going to rock-and-roll. They know it and they're getting ready.

Who's to stop them? The Iraqis?

We've bought off most of our enemies in Iraq -- Sunni and Shia. However, we didn't change their ideology toward killing each other or Americans. The Sunnis continue getting weapons through Jordan and Syria. Many foreign fighters entered Iraq through those countries. The Mahdi Army and Shiite death squads are still armed to the teeth. We've never taken away their toys and they still receive money and weapons from Iran. The wounds of the Iraq's civil war can easily be reopened.

I have the deepest respect for General Odierno, but I'm skeptical of his prediction that if the next Iraqi election cycle is peaceful the calm will be irreversible -- that's a big stretch. That would mean that when the elections are over Iraqis (instead of resorting back to violence) will say "let's talk commerce and make money." The idea that the Iraqis are going to come together (at the present time) as a testament to our great optimism is false. They're in no way, shape, or form systematized in a way that makes a free society work.

When the United States removes the safety harness the Iraqis will be playing without a net. Three thousand terrorists will run free working hard to disrupt the progress the Iraqi people have made. The very progress that made it possible for the U.S. to start removing troops.

These 3,000 bad guys could be the matches that set off the powder kegs. And that's just the known number of terrorists. Once free they'll recruit more people quadrupling their numbers. Should that happen, we'll be back to high violence and wholesale destruction. Then what?

I'm not making an argument for a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq. I argue for the exact opposite. I feel the solution is direct unconditional diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors -- including Iran. After all, Iran is tremendously influential with the majority Shiite population in Iraq.

We need to persuade Iraq's neighbors to work with us in eliminating the radical jihadists who want to perpetuate turmoil in Iraq and the entire Middle East. Will it work? I don't know. I imagine the United States will have to make some serious concessions. We can't continue to impose non-starter ultimatums on Arab countries and expect them to fall in line. If we don't cut Iraq's neighbors a little slack, the consequences of not doing so will be far worse.

Comments

[freddiefreeloader]

How many times have I heard that the only reason the insurgants are in Iraq is because were there, well turn them over to the Iraqis to do with whatever they want, and pull out of Iraq and go into Afghanistan, if they follow us there than we can take care of them there. problem solved.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

I think the only reason why insurgents are in Iraq is because we're there. From my experience, some Iraqis hated Saddam, but I felt they hated us much more. I do fear that the solution you provide : "turn them over to the Iraqis to do with whatever they want," may actually be that simplistic. I've always been for getting out, but at the same time I acknowledge current events in Iraq and what they could lead to down the road. I think Afghanistan has the possibility of being even worse than Iraq. If there is any input I would ever be able to provide the Obama administration regarding Afghanistan, it would be this: proceed with a lot of caution.

[freddiefreeloader]

I know you've heard this about a hundred times already, but let me say it again, Iraq was a war of choice, Afghanistan is a war of necessity. Afgahanistan is were Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda live. Thanks for replying to my comment, I like that.

[itmaybetoolate]

John, I really do appreciate the fact that you continue to remind us how complicated and delicate things are in Iraq. You are the first person I have heard or read who has looked at this problem in depth. The overall lack of coverage on what is happening in Iraq is disturbing.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank you for the words of encouragement and support.

[lobear00]

The Iraqi people will surly govern their own lives with out interference from Occupiers and invaders.
Cheny/Bush and their cronies were after the "OIL" and only the oil. They could care less about the people of Iraq, the US Forces they sent to iraq.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

You wrote: "The Iraqi people will surly govern their own lives with out interference from Occupiers and invaders." Well, I do live for the day.

[Berettasskeeter]

Odd that we didn't get the oil, isn't it?!
Semper fi

[robeson]

The last field report I recall said the vast majority of terrorists (aqi) were either Saudi
or Yemeni. I don't think the Iraqi government would have a problem identifying them, less so than U.S. forces.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

I have not seen the report.

[sixx]

Before GW Bush invited terrorists into the Iraq theater, they had very little trouble with terrorists. I assume that they will return to their religious battles.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

I'm sure that they will return to their religious battles. The Shiites plan to dominate with their majority, and the Sunnis will never role over. A real concern for me is that Iraq's neighbors don't join in. I'm sure there will be proxy wars, but unsure whether it could become a regional conflict.

[ajax2]

Why would the Iraqi leaders release terrorists who are trying to kill them? One would guess that they would be less likely to error on this than U.S. occupation forces.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

I don't think the Iraqis are too sympathetic toward us, nor do they identify with us, not even Malaki. After all, they have no reason to. If some of the detainees' motives were only to kill Americans, not Iraqis, they may very well be released. It's not as if they will stop killing once the U.S. is gone. They may look for other conflicts. Maybe getting even with those in Iraq who supported the occupation. Either way, let's not let the door hit us on the way out -- we should move that quickly.

[Wozzeck]

The USA public never gave a damn for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead as a result of the Neocon takeover of foreign policy. Our media assures that the actual horror is blacked out from the TV screens of the American public. Why does another hundred thousand or more deaths matter now?
The oil has been secured. Iraq is no longer a threat to Israel. Halliburton has been satiated. The GOP had their glorious reign.
The marketing campaign for Iraq is over and the new product roll out is in progress. A newer quagmire awaits in Afghanistan .

I

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

Wozzeck,

You wrote:

"Why does another hundred thousand or more deaths matter now?" Another hundred thousand does matter.

I agree with you on a general basis. I think Afghanistan could even be worse than Iraq. I've always advocated getting out .... ever since I came home from Iraq. But as I replied to another comment -- we can't deny the current situation. When we do finally leave, there will be an aftermath.

[bayside]

If I had been sold to americans for money , as many were,sent to to prison and tortured for years, you bet I would be mad..One way to help solve this situtation is to for us to bring those responsible in our govt. to trial..They want justice..We should be saying no one is above the law..Americans clean up their own house.

[zaz33]

bayside I agree - I have a problem with invaders being innocent and insurgent being guilty. (my opinion)

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

bayside,

Right. What would we do if we were invaded ? We would fight back. It's as natural for them as it is us. It's really tough for Iraq veterans to deal with, at least it is for me, because when you're over there and the Iraqis are trying to kill you, at those moments you don't take into account what precipitated the collision course you're on with the Iraqis, you only want to survive. Coming home and reflecting on it all and trying to make sense of it is troubling. Hindsight is always 20/20 and sometimes it's very painful to deal with.

[bgoodric]

So, John Bruhns, are you in favor of war crimes trials for the relevant U.S. policy-makers? That's bayside's point. I agree with bayside; I think seeing Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et alia behind bars, either at the Hague or at home, would make a huge difference in how the rest of the world, including previous prisoners wrongly arrested and/or tortured by the U.S., regard the current U.S. Are you in favor?

[arvay]

The fact is that ultimately there's not much we can do to guarantee the kind of outcome we'd like to see in Iraq.

Our unwarranted invasion has been the main factor motivating the insurgents -- and the Iraqi government will have to decide how to deal with these prisoners and other messes we've created. The faster we get out, the fewer insurgents we'll motivate.

We Americans are going to have to face some very uncomfortable facts.

The invasion of Iraq is resulting in the creation of a Shiite-majority government that's very friendly to Iran. The previous administration never really defined "victory," butt this isn't a "victory."

Due to initial bungling at Tora Bora and the resources wasted in Iraq, our expeditionary force in Afghanistan faces severe problems, if not defeat, there. And we've stimulated a guerilla movement that's a threat to both Afghanistan and Pakistan's stability. Killing a "major Taliban figure" every so often with a drone missile will accomplish nothing.

Despite what we should have learned from Vietnam, we've wasted enormous sums and lives of our own people and many more in the nations we've "helped." After killing 50,000 Americans and maybe a million Asians in Vietnam to "stop communism," communism won and then collapsed. Today they have a stock market. Why did all those people have to die?

Why don't we ever seem to learn?

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

arvay,

I could not have put it any better. Brilliant. Thank you.

V/R
John

[arvay]

thank you!

[StillAmused]

"what [will] the U.S. Military will do with approximately 18,500 Iraqi detainees still in custody." ?

You mean the 18,500 insurgents who had nothing to do with 9/11, the overwhelming majority of whom WEREN'T insurgents until we launched an unprovoked and unwarranted invasion of a sovereign nation... the 18,500 who, far from being a credible threat to the U.S., are, in fact, mostly a threat to the foreign troops occupying THEIR neighborhood?

THOSE 18,500?

Hoo-ah!

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

I know. I get it. We should have never invaded. We should have left yesterday. I've beat that drum for years. This piece focuses on just another unpleasant reality regarding Iraq. And I make a distinction between Iraqis that have been unnecessarily detained and no nonsense terrorists. The process of getting out has begun. But there will be an aftermath.

[StillAmused]

It wasn't my intention to belabor the obvious... it was to point out the dark poetic justice in that "aftermath". In the wake of any crime (in this case, an elaborate, compound war crime) there are CONSEQUENCES. How ironic that the commanders who led their loyal troops (who had no vote) on Junior's excellent invasion, occupation and sweep-up of the predictable respondents should now be left holding the bag... and the dilemma of exactly what to do with their 'war trophies'.

Do you appreciate the sublime irony in Kenyon's observation that, "unless the United States can persuade Iraqi judges to loosen their traditional rules that require two witnesses or a confession" to secure convictions, many of those detainees will go free?

Is that another "aftermath" of this obscene undertaking... that our parting message to the purported democracy we've propped up is: "Drop the formalities of due process and railroad these suckers"?

Finally, as for those "no-nonsense terrorists" you single out, aren't they also mostly the creatures of our plunder? Or were the streets of Baghdad and Fallujah already teeming with "no-nonsense terrorists" and suicide bombers BEFORE we unleashed "shock and awe"?

I'm not laying accountability at your feet... you were doing your sworn duty. What I AM laying at your feet is the underlying, unpalatable truth NEVER mentioned in the labored, moralistic handwringing over what we can possibly do now with the consequences of our own actions.

[dobberdoss]

says you!

[zanzig]

And if the Iraqi judicial system DOES loosen it's rules, on what basis are these people to be convicted? On the say-so of the American military? And we all know how credible that currently is. I have absolutely no doubt that these 3,000, or even a fair proportion of the remaining 15,500, will move into, or revert to, high risk terrorist activities if released, but it has now become a chicken and egg argument. Have we created or encouraged these terrorists by unjustly arresting, and possibly abusing, them? I am aware (from discussions with recent Iraqi refugees here) that the general populace does not see an attack on American troops in Iraq as a criminal act, and it is entirely possible that the Iraqi Government reflects some of this attitude. I agree with you that the strong likelihood is that these people will be released. Diplomacy is the only solution.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

zanzig,

Yes indeed. An endless cycle and a revolving door. Good analysis. Strong diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors has not been tested. We should give it a try.

V/R
John

[Berettasskeeter]

On the contrary! Strong diplomacy HAS been tried. The UN has been working with Iran; Iranian "diplomats" have been working with Iraq (mostly to undermine them); the US has been working with Iraq, Jordan, Saudi. What diplomacy do you suppose might work that hasn't yet worked??
Semper fi

[Berettasskeeter]

Your cheap shot at the credibility of our GI's is unwarranted, and merely highlights your ignorance.
Semper fi