Good Thing We Haven’t Abandoned Them Yet
Shiites Interested in Alliance with American Troops.
Trust AP to look for a cloud in the silver lining.
Such pacts to fill the vacuum left by Iraqi police and soldiers unable or unwilling to act against Shiite militias carries even greater potential spinoffs for Iraq’s U.S.-backed leadership—but also higher risks.
You know, I don’t think so. I think al-Sadr saw this coming and has been repositioning. I think al-Maliki will see which way the wind is blowing and see if he can’t get out front of it. The rippling of Shiite-on-Shiite battles to the highest levels sounds a lot like what’s already going on. I could see this creating Shiite unity, even some commonality of purpose with like-minded Sunnis. Could happen. Could it all get derailed, run into problems? Yeah. You have any better ideas? I mean other than abandonment and genocide.*
This article talks about battalions of 350 men to be chosen by local tribal leaders and armed and paid by the government. To the extent they are properly trained and controlled, that’s a start. It also talks about keeping the groups small, and closely monitoring them, essentially to avoid creating new militias. Could work. Could be the beginnings of an alternative to thug rule, some homegrown law and order. Some people can respect. A way to make it work in a tribal, ethnically diverse society. But that’s getting ahead of the game. Right now, they’re just talking about reining in militias and keeping Iranians out of it.
* Approved by some of America’s finest media organizations and political candidates.
Topics: Iraq
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:42 pm on Sunday, September 16, 2007
17 Responses to “Good Thing We Haven’t Abandoned Them Yet”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:58 am
If it’s real, I think it is a good thing. The changes have to start somewhere.
September 17th, 2007 at 2:06 am
It sounds good, the prairiepundit has something on it too.
September 17th, 2007 at 8:09 am
10:1 its real and will work. The al-Ameriki are fast gaining rep as the “honest broker” that can be kinda trusted.
They also know that the al-Ameriki tribe turns into a pumpkin at midnight if a democrat gets elected next year, so unless they want to be left to the tender mercies of AQ and some of mookies more extreme goons, they’d better get a handle on this whole thing chop chop.
September 17th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Interesting, Purple. You’re saying that the Democrats’ efforts to bring the troops home actually should have the effect of getting the Iraqis to stand on their own, while the Republicans’ open-ended commitment would do the opposite.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Except that actually bringing the troops home — which is what the Dhimmicrats want to do — is a bad idea, corndog, given what would happen if we left. A potential result that you clearly accept, if you believe the threat is valid enough to motive the Iraqis.
Further, since the Dhimmicrats intended to abandon Iraq, and not motivate them by threats, one should label this “unintended consequences”. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Dhimmicrats almost never included Iraq in any post-withdrawal plans, with the exceptions of either a small force with a very vague mission remaining, or Murtha’s laughable “over the horizon” based in Okinawa.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:15 am
BTW, one of the problems that we faced in Iraq was a decided lack of trust from the Iraqis, in part because we are infidels, in part because we are foreign troops, and in part because of what didn’t happen* in southern Iraq during the Shi’a revolt immediately after Desert Storm.
But that’s slowly turning around.
================================
*: Bush 41 dorked that one up by not supporting the revolt. The results were such that some of the crimes laid at Hussein’s feet came from that time and place.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
[...] Bush cling to Anbar as a model for success is sad enough, but now the Pentagon and the war pimps are trying to sell the idea that alliances with tribal leaders can solve the problem of a violent [...]
September 17th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
So the Dems want to withdraw for the express purpose of “getting the Iraqis to stand on their own two feet”? First I’ve heard of it. Stand on their own two feet against what? I thought it was our presence that was causing all the strife and violence, so why would the Dems be concerned about the Iraqi’s standing on their own feet? I mean, if we just leave, everything will be hunky dory… Right?
And if Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror, then why are the terrorist’s contesting it? You’d think OBL and Zawahiri and the boys would be overjoyed and want us to stay in Iraq, since it’s distracting and all.
Man, I cannot handle this nuance stuff…
September 17th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
[...] (via Jules Crittenden) [...]
September 18th, 2007 at 1:05 am
V of the C, I feel your confusion, man. If corndog doesn’t work as a spin-doctor, he’s in the wrong business.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:11 am
I can’t do anything about the fact that you don’t pay attention. Virtually every time a Democrat talks about the need for benchmarks with deadlines, the Democrat will say that without these, there is no pressure on the Iraqis to make the political changes that are needed in order to bring peace. That’s what the whole thing is about.
It’s a lot easier just to dismiss it as “Democrats love surrender,” but the whole thinking is that unless the Iraqis know there is a deadline, there is no incentive for them to act.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:46 am
[...] better, this new “Awakening” movement is spreading. There is word that Shi’ite tribal leaders are also joining forces with the US to combat Iranian influences. The idea that sectarianism was stronger than nationalism in Iraq was never true. Iraqi Sunnis and [...]
September 18th, 2007 at 11:46 am
‘dog, I hear what you’re saying, but the whole Dem strategy such as it is seems to ignore the will of the bad guys**. What do you think they will do with a benchmark?
**Yeah, yeah, I know all the shibboleths: we created the bad guys, we’re no better than the bad guys, who are we to say they’re bad guys, they’re just like the “Minutemen”, we’re actually the bad guys, they’re just poor brown people with grievances we haven’t addressed…
September 18th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
VC,
Well, that’s a good point. But don’t you think that if the Iraqis got their act together, then the whole country could go after the bad guys (whereever they come from)? I’m just throwing that out there…
September 18th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Now we’re getting somewhere ‘dog. )Although I can see why you got thrown out of DU or Kos or whatever.) That’s the idea: create a whole country that goes after the bad guys in a region that previously provided infrastructure and support for them.
Sounds like all we need now is to agree on how long that takes.
I think that will take as long as it takes. Other people think we should announce how long it takes because they either don’t believe the bad guys have a brain in their heads or they believe we are the ones with the sinister agenda or they care about hurting the administration more than they care about their country or the Iraqis.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
How come you, as a conservative, don’t look at it the way you would look at someone on welfare or unemployment?
September 18th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Cuz its national security, not pandering to special interests.
I guess I could turn the question around on you ‘dog. How about the Great Society? Whaddya think, one more decade ought to do it? Transfer of what, $4 trillion over 40 years from them that can and do to them that can and won’t? Got anything to show for it?