No, I am not about to accuse anyone of making one. Instead, I am curious for the reasons why the U.S. government doesn't use them more. In particular, I've been thinking this with regards to Saddam Hussein, and thought this back when we first went to war with him. Why couldnt we have paid him to go away? First, I think he would have considered it--he was savy about his own career and if confronted with the reality that he was going to be removed from power one way or the other, my guess is he would he have considered a one billion dollar buy out and his own island (Napolean style). Obviously this is a lot lot lot cheaper, not to mention the untold number of lives we would have saved among Americans and Iraqis, and we'd likely not have the insurgency/martyr problem that we are currently facing b/c Hussein would have left on his own power.
So I am interested in what the reasons are for us not wanting to do it. I can think of ethics as a reason, but is anyone naive enough to think ethics plays a role in our war plans anymore? Not many Woodrow Wilson's and Eleanor Roosevelt's running around the White House these days. More likely, it's a bad precedent and we don't want future wanna be dictators thinking they can get the same cash or even more. Think if they hired Scott Boras as an agent and actually had weapons of mass distruction--that would merit some serious cash. (we could offer the dear leader money plus his own movie production company. I'd watch his films if it saved a few thousand lives). But how often would this happen?--we'd use it only in extreme cases; and for anyone who wants to make a quick billion, becoming a dictator and threatening the US is definitely the long way approach to getting rich. Plus, we already do this kind of thing under the table. We pay informants to help us catch mafiosos and the KKK and we are giving out ransoms all the time. We could have offered Saddam the money under the table and told him to keep it quiet as part of the deal. So, why not?