Sunni militia brings calm to Baghdad area

[Maggy J]

Saw this on the BBC news and was surprised but then realised that I've not heard about as many attacks or bombings in Iraq recently.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/7116717.stm

[BBKing]

In addition to the current surge of US forces, one of the major factors that is credited with helping the improvement, has been the emergence in Sunni areas, of local fighters recruited by the Americans as a kind of neighbourhood watch.

In other words, the Americans are arming anti-government paramilitary groups who used to support Saddam, then supported al-Qaeda, or at least allied with them against the US. These people used to be called 'terrorists', of course. It's not surprising that attacks reduce if you pay half your enemies to fight the other half.

Actually, it's also down to the local al-Qaeda franchise proving that left to themselves they'll outrage local opinion sufficiently to provoke a violent reaction - the conservative Sunni tribes in charge round there don't like swivel-eyed bearded loons turning up and shooting perfectly respectable Muslims for perceived infringements. Another thing they don't like are 'Persians', by which they mean the largely Iranian-backed central (elected) government, so it's not awfully democratic. It is, however, classic cold calculating counter-insurgency warfare, so there's at least a minor improvement in the quality of the brains behind the operation. Less chance of unfortunate shooting incidents by the US, too, although they've occasionally taken out their allies (who look of course, like bearded Islamic fundamentalists with lots of weapons, like, er, al-Qaeda).

The 'surge' is entirely pointless, of course, they're having to withdraw already because it'll finally break the US army otherwise - 5000 are out next month, without any of the politlcal breakthroughs the 'surge' was supposed to make room for happening - in fact, they've quietly abandoned most of them now. The rest will be out next year, when the proof of the pudding will be what the Sunni tribes decide to do with their nice shiny weapons now they've beaten al-Qaeda (who, being dead, will no longer be able to be used as the bogeyman to scare the US into continuing the occupation). This is being al-Maliki's desperate desire to conclude a long-lasting occupation deal with the US where they sit around protecting him - the Sunnis and the Sadr lot are opposed to this.

In the south, of course, we're proclaiming victory by the opposite tactic - we've retired to the airport and left them to it. The result was a 90% reduction in attacks, neatly proving it was us being there that caused them, and a major threat to the safety of the local Iraqis who were naive enough to have helped us.

http://danhardie.wordpress.com/2007/...ting-them-die/

[zinglebarb]

of course the country will end up exactly the same as it was under Saddam eventually. Only way tribal feuding countries can be ruled and thats with the iron fist of a fascist

[foreverwar]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

of course the country will end up exactly the same as it was under Saddam eventually. Only way tribal feuding countries can be ruled and thats with the iron fist of a fascist

What - like England and Scotland?

[BBKing]

Well, there's always one optimist. Saddam modelled himself on Stalin, of course.

I'm not sure you can build a totalitarian dictatorship from the ground up with no working state institutions (they're quasi militia fronts) and that many guns in private hands, personally - you need to start from somewhere. Saddam started with an existing country with a monarchy - there currently isn't really an Iraq to build from. We were careful to destroy it.

Oddly enough, the proto-neocons were much more keen on fascist dictators than social democratic leaders - the former would apparently lead to democracy while the latter would lead to Communism. This is behind the split in the US leadership in 1982 over whether to support the UK or Argentina over the Falklands, luckily the realists won that one.

Very interesting article by a (possibly former, although he does think the US should swan about replacing other countries' leaders) leading neo-con explaining it all:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule

---------- Post added at 20:39 ---------- Previous post was at 20:38 ----------

What - like England and Scotland?

We've had our share - Edward III springs to mind. Tough bloke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_iii

[Mr Angry]

Word on the street is that contractors will be leaving Iraq "in their droves" pre January 1st as the new legislative assembly / parliament will be invoking Mr Bremner's spurious Order 17 on that date.

[foreverwar]

What colour is Order 17?

[BBKing]

Word on the street is that contractors will be leaving Iraq "in their droves" pre January 1st as the new legislative assembly / parliament will be invoking Mr Bremner's spurious Order 17 on that date.

'revoking', surely? And it's Mr. Bremer, unless Rory's been keeping a big secret from us.

[Mr Angry]

Gentlemen, apologies from an over tired Mr A.

Order 17 is "brown" - the colour most similar to the gist of the premise upon which it was primarily introduced.

Bremner / Bremer - sorry, it's hard to tell the comedians apart these days.

Revoking / invoking - you'll have to give me a day or two to come up with an excuse for that faux pas.

Now, where did I put my Hong Kong Phooey book of typo excuses?

[greencreeper]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

...but then realised that I've not heard about as many attacks or bombings in Iraq recently.

I thought that was because most people have stopped giving a toss and the journalists have moved on to things more juicy

[Maggy J]

Originally Posted by greencreeper

I thought that was because most people have stopped giving a toss and the journalists have moved on to things more juicy

Well apparently not.We shall see if more reporters start to get out and about more to interview more Iraqis to be able to judge if it works.

I think myself that the country will probably fragment into smaller states eventually controlled by such militia.

[BBKing]

No, there really have been fewer bombings, the level is back to what it was a couple of years ago, bad but not astronomically awful. The al-Qaeda boys have been nearly wiped out now and don't have many/any safe havens left, because the local Iraqis have thrown them out.

There's also a reduction in sectarian violence, because Baghdad, for instance, is nearly segregated into sectarian areas now, and in any case 1.5-2m people have fled (there's a lot of spin around them coming back, but the figures are fixed - any Iraqi coming across the border is classed as a returning refugee).

Journalists apparently consider it as dangerous as ever for them.