« The Electability Campaign Against Hillary Clinton
Secretary Gates: “Al Qaeda is better at communicating its message on the Internet than America” »
America’s Iraqi Death Squads
So — what’s really going on in Iraq? If the warmongers are to be believed, violence is down and the light at the end of the tunnel is growing brighter and brighter, all hail Bush and Petraeus and the Surge of Surges. Sure, it’s been a tough go, but now, at long last, success is at hand thanks to the stick-to-it-iveness of those who have been determined to guide the war through the tumult and the hardship, those resolute enough to stand firm in the face of massive opposition and partisan cowardice. Victory is near, the glory theirs.
The problem is, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics, and, like Vietnam (like any war), this is not a war that can be judged by the numbers, and especially not by numbers selected and de-contextualized by those using them to support the warmongering case. Here’s how I put it a few weeks ago: “While it is true that there has been some success, isolated and likely temporary success, in such places as Anbar, the numbers show clearly that the Surge has not worked. Some positive numbers can be found, but the violence continues, as does the instability, and, meanwhile, the political situation remains tenuous at best. Progress and reconciliation remain largely impossible goals at this point, as the Iraqis themselves admit, and no amount of surge is likely to turn the situation around.”
Beyond the numbers, though, what is the current security situation in Iraq? To the extent that there is any genuine security, the U.S. is simultaneously backing a largely Shiite sectarian government in Baghdad and Sunni sectarian groups in, among other places, Anbar province. The former is closely allied with Shiite militias, so much so that the Iraqi police are largely seen, and rightly so, as an extension of those militias. The latter are newer allies with whom the U.S. has teamed up to beat back al Qaeda. In other words, the U.S. is playing both sides. The sectarian violence continues, but both the Shiites and the Sunnis seem to be biding their time, benefiting from U.S. support while refraining, for the most part, from engaging in outright civil war.
Which is to say, the violence may be down, but the success — whatever success there has been — is temporary, and largely a mirage. Which is precisely what many critics of the Surge, myself included, were predicting at the outset. There was bound to be some success, however measured, but it would not be lasting success. Time will (continue to) tell, perhaps, but what must be of great concern is not just that the Surge isn’t working, or only working temporarily, but that the policy of supporting both sides, and especially of supporting certain Sunni groups in the fight against al Qaeda, seems to be deepening, and sharpening, the sectarian divide that still threatens to blow Iraq apart.
As The Sunday Times reported a couple of days ago — and it is hardly a bastion of anti-Americanism, nor of leftist criticism of the war — the U.S. is funding (and actively supporting) Sunni militias across the country, including the so-called Baghdad Brigade:
Members of the Baghdad Brigade receive $300 a man each month from the Americans, who also provide vehicles, uniforms and flak jackets. In return the brigade keeps out Al-Qaeda, dismantles roadside bombs and patrols the area, a task performed with considerable swagger by many of its 4,000 recruits.
The US military is delighted with the results achieved by the brigade in Abu Ghraib and by similar groups in other former “hot spots” of sectarian conflict that have seen a sharp decline in violence.
For Shi’ites…, however, a Sunni militia represents another potential source of terror in a country where millions have been traumatised by ethnic cleansing.
A 50% cut in car and roadside bombs, shootings and rocket and mortar attacks since June has brought hope that some of the 5m Iraqis driven from home may soon be able to go back. Yet many… are too frightened of the new militias and the ethnic cleansers in their ranks to risk moving.
Officials in the Shi’ite-led government also fear the burgeoning of fresh forces beyond its control. The question being asked in government circles is: have the Americans achieved a short-term gain in security at a cost of long-term pain that may be inflicted by the Sunni militias, which are already threatening to go to war against their Shi’ite counterparts?
The western province of Anbar first witnessed the phenomenon known as “the awakening” – the turning of Sunni tribes against the largely foreign fighters of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
For General David Petraeus, the American commander, the awakening has proved a powerful force with which to increase the impact of his surge of 30,000 US troops earlier this year.
By allying the US forces with Sunnis opposed to Al-Qaeda, the general has engineered victories over the brutal foreign fighters that seemed almost unimaginable 12 months ago.
US-backed Sunni militias have spread eastwards from Anbar across Baghdad. They already number 77,000, known collectively as “concerned local citizens”. This is more than the Shi’ite Mahdi Army and nearly half the number in the Iraqi army.
Exotically named groups such as the Knights of Ameriya and the Guardians of Ghazaliya strut the streets in camouflage uniforms, brandishing new AK47s that the Americans say they have not supplied.
This is all-too-reminiscent of U.S. involvement in other international conflicts, from Latin America to Southeast Asia. These militias, after all, are a lot like the right-wing death squads once favoured by anti-communist zealots, and the answer to the question posed above is, quite clearly, yes.
Which means that the current U.S. military strategy in Iraq, including the Surge, has not just produced a mirage of success but contributed to the deepening and sharpening of the sectarian divide. These Sunni militias are using the U.S. just as the U.S. is using them, but, in the end, and perhaps before too long, they will turn their bloodthirsty attention fully to slaughtering Shiites and overthrowing the government in Baghdad, and the Shiite militias, whatever their relationship to the government, will do the same, rising up again to slaughter Sunnis and entrench their rule in Baghdad.
The U.S. may be playing both sides, but in so doing it is building up both sides and effectively forcing them into confrontation, a far more lethal confrontation than anything seen so far. The U.S. can, or at least try to, wash its hands of the situation, calling it a day and blaming the Iraqis for not doing enough to improve their own lot, but, of course, it will be the Iraqi people who end up suffering from a disastrous war that, with irresponsible U.S. policy heaped upon gross mismanagement from the outset, may be about to trigger massive and widespread instability and violence, U.S.-backed militias and death squads on the battlefield of civil war, innocent civilians targeted for extermination, a country in chaos, the U.S. refusing to take the blame for all the blameful things it has done.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
12 Responses to “America’s Iraqi Death Squads”
Anyone who uses the word “Warmongers” in the very first sentence to describe people who believe in the cause of fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq in Iraq instead of here in the USA shows very clearly.
Any opinion expressed next is totally biased against the Iraq War. Just more left wing – liberal dribble and hysteria.
Uh, this post makes no sense. First, a declarative statement that the surge obviously failed with a link to a 4-month old cherry-picked data. Then, no, the surge might have worked – but it doesn’t matter because it won’t last. Then there is the mis-used phrase all-too-often muttered by layman who don’t actually know what they’re talking about: “all-too-reminiscent…” And the idea these Sunni militias will be marching across Iraq conquering is quite silly. Finally, the conclusion is a hell and brimstone prediction with little basis in fact.
Sincerely,
A Warmonger.
This latest thread — how predictably immoderately it began…[rolling eyes]
When we’re talking about what the Sunni militias are planning for the future, demanding a ‘basis in fact’ is argumentation, not argument.
No one knows for sure, what the majority of Sunni tribal chiefs have planned for the future or will decide in the future. Various statements from some, however, indicate that they have not given up on emerging as the dominant/ruling force in Iraq,again, though. That can mean nothing else than a readiness to fight the SHIIas when the opportunity is ripe.
To unite against AlQaeda is not the same as to unite with the SHIIas or to support the central governemtn. As we have seen over and over, it doesn’t even take a majority opinion to begin dolossal mischief. A few hotheads will do.
Doubt about the end result of the surge seems only reasonable while the unrest under the surface is still bubbling. At the very least, we should be alert to these possiblities and plan now for how to react.
Pooh-poohing possible trouble makes no more sense than pronouncing catastrophy to be inevitable.
We;ve just had a new element introduced, by virtue of long term security commitment to the current governement. That could seriously tie our hands amid local struggles. We could well end up fihhting the very Sunnis who are our friends today.
Worry is definitely in order, IMO.
[...] House America’s Iraqi death squads » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news [...]
That’s quite an assumption you make! The fact is that first one must distinguish between the more urbanized tribes and those in rural areas. For the most part, the rural tribes just want to be left alone – they certainly have no desire (nor have they ever shown any) to go marching about Baghdad – a city they’re completely unfamiliar with – randomly killing Sunni’s. For the more urban Sunnis there is more danger but they are such in the minority that they cannot really defend their own population while attempting take over additional territory – particularly when faced with a much larger Shia population that’s better-armed. Some of these urban guys are Cheney’s “dead enders” but many of them have been killed and others realized the Shia can ethnically cleanse a lot better than they can.
As for all this Shiny new AK’s for some Sunni’s aren’t much compared to what the Iranians are providing these days. The fact is that most US assistance comes in the form of support – if the Sunni’s get in trouble we help them out, provide fire support/CAS, etc. Without this critical US support the Sunni tribes are just a bunch of guys with AK’s. I guess that Mr. Stickings assumes the US will just keep providing that support when these these ninja Sunni death squads he predicts are going to pop up any minute.?
Maybe I was “demanding a basis in fact” argumentation, but the post had so little in the way of fact that I couldn’t help my self.
You’d be right if that’s what I was doing! One can, I think, point out some of the hyperbole out there without saying that everything is wine and roses.
Well, hate to point out the obvious, but it’s not a commitment. It’s a potential commitment. People are talking as if it’s already signed, sealed and delivered.
Certainly that is a possibility and yes, worry is in order. Now compare your reasonable statement with the title of this post. See a difference?
Entropy,
Headlines are to news articles what titles are to posts: they’re attention grabbers.
I think it’s a waste of time to get stuck in either.
This post accents the possible negatives, while you accent a rosier reading of the crystal ball. You make a lot assumptions yourself about the mindset of various tribes, forgetting the fire that can spread when it’s ignited by a ‘few dead enders’. Like I said, the possibilities are numerous
The ‘to be negotiated’ part of the security commitment is only a metter of working out the details. The permanent bases we are building belie any iffiness about he commitment itself, IMO. It seems to be a bipartisan acceptance, BTW.
While I would agree with you about exaggerations, I would caution also against complacency. Sometimes, there really is a lion under the bed. Picking the right time to raise the alarm is never easy and doing so too early is no worse than being too late.
Entropy says:
What is the source for this claim?
I will give two links to a US and British Generals who say that Iran is stopping the flow of weapons into Iran. It’s the warmongers who are making exaggerated claims about Iranian weapons. I’m not supporting Iran, just skeptical about Pentagon spin. Their history of distortions is reminiscent of Vietnam.
The links:
http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=11962
Petraeus Sought to Prevent Release of Iranians
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/november152007/iraq_iran_111507.php
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/06/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-US-Iran.php
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD8T506CO3
Iraqi Shiite Leader Defends Iran
Where are your links from John Pike(Global Security) or Bill Roggio(The Long War Journal) to back up your claim.
Sure Rudi, it does look like Iran has ended support for many of the groups it supports – I have no disagreement with that. My comment you’re sniping at was really meant to be taken in a general sense since both the quantity and types of weapons provided by Iran are materially different (meaning greater and better) than anything we’ve given the tribes. If Mr. Stickings’ fantasy of US-supported Anbar Sunni Death Squads ever comes true, do you think Iran will sit idly by?
No, this post obsesses with the negatives – many of which are fantastical. There are Sunni’s in Iraq who are certainly predisposed to death-squad-like activity – the vast majority of tribes in Anbar are not among them. The direct comparison made to “right-wing death squads” from Latin America or SE Asia is, frankly, laughable. Naturally no evidence for such bogus possibilities is ever provided in posts like these.
In the interest of providing some educational value to my comment, here’s a primer on the Anbar tribes (390 page PDF file).
Entropy – Bear with me, but what study do you cite for the Galloway effect.
Michael Yon cites a Galloway effect and mentions Joe Galloway, a reporter who is one of the few that the military awarded a medal for his bravery helping out wounded soldiers in Vietnam. From Yon’s article:
One big problem, it appears he’s confusing or conflating George Galloway with Joe Galloway. Joe is the renowned reporter, George Galloway is a corrupt radical British politician. A Google search of “Galloway effect embed” only turns up 9 links to the James Lacey article. In said article Lacey then attacks Galloway with this gem.
The only problem is that Galloway ALREADY has “promotion” and “praise of his peers”, he doesn;t need it again. Maybe Lacey doesn’t like Galloways attack on Pentagon hacks.
From McClatchy:
From Wiki:
It appears that Lacey isn’t questioning Galloways courage(civilian wins Bronze Star), but his politics( Bush administration “looks remarkably more like an organized crime ring than one of the arms of the American government?”)
Backing away from who said what, and looking at Iraq as a whole, not just Anbar, I can’t help but conclude that the sictuation is precarious, and potentially volatile.
To talk of the potential reemergence of death squads is no more fantastical than to dismiss the possiblity. Baghdad is still central in measuring the level of violence, and even Anbar is not immune to reacting to how things evolve there.
The relative quiet in Baghdad is artifically induced by wall separations and both forced and voluntray separtions of sectarian populations, as well as the flight of many of tis residents.
This artificial quietude can not be imposed forever, and a lot depends on a post-wall future no one can claim to see clearly.
Even in Anbar, it’s a question of how long the locals will remain happy with US presence. In general, foreign boots on their soil are not greeted with glee.
In the meantime. Al Qaeda has not left Iraq. There is always the posibility it will repeat attemps to stir up sectarian condlicts.
As far as I can see, Iraq is a minefield. There is no guarnatee that we will step on a mine tomorrow, but there is no guarantee that we won’t.
I think what someone chooses to emphasize depends a lot on that person’s position on the war in general. It’s just a fact of life that when two people look at an object from different angles, they will see two different objects.
We have to live with that.
Rudi,
Joe Galloway isn’t the point. I’m a big fan of Joe Galloway. The point of the article was to show that individual journalists embedded with units tend to see the entire campaign based on what’s happening to that unit. Hence you had all these reporters incorrectly assessing the situation during the operational pause and sandstorms during OIF. They incorrectly perceived the offensive to be failing by extrapolation. Meanwhile, the guy who was embedded up at the operational level had the whole picture. This is human nature and happens all the time. I’m just surprised that so many journalists keep falling into this type of bias.
Doma,
Yes, and I’ve never claimed otherwise.
You’re right, (as I said in my previous comment) unfortunately, that’s not what this post is saying! This post is not only saying that the Anbar tribes could become future deaths squads but that they’d be supported by USA – in fact the post practically suggests its inevitable!
As I said before, there are elements in Iraq who’ve done and could in the future do the death squad thing (most of them have actually be AQI), but you won’t find Anbari bedouins among them. That’s not the vast majority tribes do things – it’s not in their nature. Additionally, our military is not stupid. The teams working with these tribes know the deals and dangers much better than any of us chairborne rangers here. We’re not giving these tribes a huge military capability – only assisting them in what many were already doing – defending themselves from AQI.
Now, if, as you seem to suggest, we are supposed to consider every possibility, no matter how fantastical, then yes, it’s POSSIBLE the Anbar tribes could leave their lands, head to Baghdad to murder them some Shia’s. Of course, by the same token, I could become an astronaut.
Yeah, and that will suddenly turn them into US-supported death squads? Uh, no.
*sigh* It’s not what someone chooses to emphasize. It’s what someone chooses to pull out of thin air or perhaps their fourth point of contact. And it’s not even mere “emphasis” – its a theory that’s ominously put forward as not only a possibility – but a likely outcome – one for which zero evidence is provided. And when I point this out it seems that I’m require to provide something to disprove his assertions. Whatever.
I fully expect Mr. Stickings to “emphasize” every bad thing he can about this war and that’s his right. But here he’s just making stuff up as anyone who has even an elementary knowledge of Anbar or US military operations would know. And that’s in addition to the comments on the surge in this post which make no sense. It’s not working – or maybe it is, but it won’t last – or maybe it is or it isn’t, but it will ultimately fail, etc.
But hey believe what you want.
Ok, I’m done with this thread.