How does this show the central government of Iraq to be viable? It doesn't. It shows the rise of local tribal forces in the face of the failure of civil government. Besides, Al Quida is not the biggest problem in Iraq. They exacerbated existing problems of sectarianism, but they are just one of many groups with their own agenda. How much did we have to bribe tribal leaders to get this result?
I could say the same thing about your country. Who are you now, Louis XIV? I disagree. This is just a thing you keep saying until you make it sound like truth. If it wasn't for the Qaida and the former regime members, where would be a real problem existing?! This is just an insult, and a lie. How do you know that they are doing this for your money?! You know nothing about Arabian tribes.
Actually, we have police that keep the peace. We don't have to negotiate with local tribal leaders. Yes. The first group that profits from an outsize focus on AQI [Al Quida in Iraq-SG] are former regime elements, and the tribal chiefs with whom they are often allied. These forces are able to carry out attacks against Shiites and Americans, but also to shift the blame if it suits their purposes. While the U.S. military has recently touted "news" that Sunni insurgents have turned against the al-Qaeda terrorists in Anbar Province, there is little evidence of actual clashes between these two groups. Sunni insurgents in Anbar have largely ceased attacks on Americans, but some observers suggest that this development has less to do with vanquishing AQI than with the fact that U.S. troops now routinely deliver cash-filled duffle bags to tribal sheiks serving as "lead contractors" on "reconstruction projects." The excuse of fighting AQI comes in handy. "Remember, Iraq is an honor society," explains Juan Cole, an Iraq expert and professor of modern Middle Eastern studies at the University of Michigan. "But if you say it wasn't us—it was al-Qaeda—then you don't lose face." http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.tilghman.html
Those people are joining the police, too. This is no secret; you just interpreted it in the way you want. You admit that the attacks have ceased but you postulate that this is because of money. This is funny. I think if we knew that, we could just paid those people four years ago and saved all those expenses, right? Tribal leaders can't stop insurgents from doing anything if those don't want to. Money wouldn't stop insurgents if they didn't want to stop. Instead of creating all these funny theories why just you say that they stopped because they realized that they and the Americans are facing a common threat at this stage?! which is clearly what the case is. Al Qaida started attacking the insurgents and the tribes not the opposite. It was because they didn't submit to the Islamic state that al-qaida had declared. They caused many casualties amongst them, and this whole issue is about revenge; which is a valued tradition to those tribes.
Can you even prove if there is an al Qaeda in Iraq? Sounds to me like that is a convenient enemy to create everytime an American is around.
Hani, The tribe are the insurgents. They can stop their attacks on Americans, but the issue really has to do with tribes and sects wanting power. I suggest the fighting has decreased because the ethnic cleansing has already occurred.
Interesting article in the Washington Post on a soon to be published study on the effectiveness of "forced democracy" (i.e., democracy imposed from outside by military action): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601359.html?hpid=topnews Not suprisingly the success rate is pretty low.
Shukran ikteer, ya Hani- wa ahlan, wa sahlan. There are too few people posting here paying attention, and worthy of paying attention to. But you're worthy. You and I may not see the world the same way, but you are looking much more intently than most, and I do respect that very much. If I am duplicating anyone else's response to Hani here, it's only for continuity in my own thinking- I don't mean to ignore the rest of the conversation, or monopolize it here. Hani: "hypewaders, thanks for your input. But I didn't intend when I mentioned Aoun (as a working example) to engage myself in a useless argument about him." I don't think it would be useless at all here, because it just might reveal for other people that the issues are not simple in the Mideast. There are many posting here who are clueless about the many layers of the Mideast political onion, who assume it can be sliced it into neat separate halves. "...calling Samir Geagea and Amin Gemayel Syrian puppets is not a smear?" Stani-shway, s'il vous plait... I said: "Aoun didn't mend fences with erstwhile Syrian puppets within the domestic Lebanese political institution". Al-Hakim and the Gemayel family have always been Aoun's homies. The puppets he had to mend fences with are Karami's remaining bureaucratic cronies, Nasrallah, and all the Lebanese politicos that the American might associate with the "Axis of Evil", because the most viable present counterbalance to American-Israeli hegemony is in fact the Iranian-Syrian collaboration. It is a little bet complicated, and we probably should delve into that some more. But let's move on: "I heard Michelle Aoun himself calling them that, like a gazillion times..." I think you may have taken him out of context, like you just did me. "I can say many things and begin a sterile argument... anyone can understand everything that is happening anywhere." Shuuuuu? That is a nebulous thing to say. "We are not in Middle Ages anymore, if everyone said about his country what you say about your country then there wouldn't be anything left to talk about." You utterly lost me there. Can you rephrase that? Your meaning may have gone over my head. "Why don't we say that maybe your problem is that you people just got so much lost in the details that you can't see the big picture anymore?!" Then describe the Big Picture, and we'll compare notes. "When I see Aoun providing a Christian cover for Hizbullah in the war of 2007, I can't, honestly, pay attention to any excuses that you say." Look, 2007 became a Lebanese nationalist war. Other spats were suspended- Like in the bad old days, when multiple competing factions stood side-by-side blasting common enemies across the Green Line. "I don't know what kind of pragmatism is this that will destroy the country and bring the Syrians back?" I don't want that. I don't believe most Lebanese want that. Norsefire wants that, and I would like to personally kick his ass about it. Where are you, ya Himar? "and for what? what will he possibly do when he become a president (which can never happen now)?" Exactly: Sheikh Michel is over the hill. If he had, it would have been even worse for the "unity" of the Lebanese Army. has he become the Messiah or something?" No, he's just an old General. Aoun ushered in the Siniora government, which pro-Syrian Lebanese and Hezbollah factions have been so organized in (mostly peacefully) opposing this year. "I follow Lebanese politics enough to know that this, unfortunately, is not true." OK, show me where I'm wrong. ..."do you want to say that Hizbullah, Ba"th party, and National Syrian Party have nothing to do with Syria anymore?" No. Those are allies. For today (this is Lebanon). "Do you want to tell me that Aoun's actions didn't come in accordance with the Syrian strategy to undermine the new situation in Lebanon?" Aoun opposes Syrian influence. "I don't care if he doesn't visit Bashaar Assad in shaam (altough I remember that he suggested this once), but aren't they both working for the same goal [-]to undermine the current government and replace it with another dominated by Hizbullah and other Syrian proxies?" Not Aoun. "and the price will be b3abda for Aoun? isn't this the case? isn't this what is happening right now?" Aoun defended B3abda, and probably (in his mind) the honor of his army there, against the the Israelis. He's had enough glory up on that hill for an old General; he's had his moment of Presidency too. "If I were to accept Aoun's excuses for collaborating with the Syrians, after they left, then why wouldn't I accept the excuses of the others who collaborated while the Syrians where there?! They deserve that more than him? don't you think so?" Because when Aoun reconciled, the Syrians were gone- for the first time in 30 years. "I don't think you watch al-jazeera. This organization is banned in most Arab countries, and they have real problems in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine etc.." Consider satellite TV. Consider the internet. Ban? There is no ban in the Information Age- Only intimidation and willful ignorance. "There are tons of articles and media shows that explained what this channel does. I can't explain here." You can smear the air, but I'll shoot you down. Go ahead, make my day. "In Algeria and Egypt there were civil wars between jihadists and the governments." On the surface, that's what it was billed as. But there was a lot more to it than that. Secular-religious in the Mideast is similar to Democrat-Republican in the USA: All issues get into these rhetorical ruts for a time, even though the multiple destinations remain far apart. "Through that process, there was mass violence and thousands of Muslim civilians were killed; just like what is happening in Iraq now." Agreed. "This was what caused many Muslims to disagree with those specific groups." Agreed. "Is this what you call: fading of fundamentalism?" When change comes under the banner of fundamentalism, desperate people will hail it. When stasis comes under the banner of governments, the comfortable will thank God. Ulltimately, the comfortable are the minority, and the 'fundamentalists" will prevail, at which point it will become increasingly apparent that the fundament was not so deep: Big war to change the status quo, then relaxing coalitions will begin to show all the true colors of a peaceful peacock. Unfortunately in the American era of power-brokering, this has never been understood. Muslims in general still adore Hamas, Hizbullah, and "Muslim Brotherhood." Muslims in the Levant want change, and H, H, & MB are agents of that. After a turnover, there will be smaller skirmishes. Again. "The [Muslim Brotherhood] is the most dangerous because it works through politics and pragmatism until it gets to power, when it will abolish democracy and establish Islamic rule." The theocrats can't govern without a revolutionary cause. Take that away, and the moderates will eat their reakfast every day. Moderates are the majority, but only radicals are ruthless enough to upset the status quo. Radicals know how to knock things down. Moderates know how to build things up. "I know you like the Algerian and Egyptian solutions (have corrupt dictators fight jihadists for you). But this didn't work, it just made things worse. This policy brought 9/11 to you." No, it was the West misunderstanding and perpetuating the underlying tensions that has kept radicalism festering. "Here lies the problem. You can't accept anything about Iraq but deeming it a failure." That's right. I have a problem with failure. "Well, after 40 years from now, you will see why Iraq is not a failure as you think." In 40 years, I expect Baghdad will be thriving like never before, but no thanks to the present power-brokers, who have set anotherr nakbah into motion. Iraq will now lose another generation to misery, hatred, and death. But in 40 years, Americans will certainly not be calling the shots, whether we learn anyting or not. "Well there are no more problems now." Understatement of the Decade. "Sunni clans of the west have eradicated al-qaida from there." McQaeda is a free franchise. Thousands of angry young men are eager to hoist that standard. 'Yesterday, clans and tribes from the center and north declared that they intend to achieve the same in their regions." Of course they have. I hope they succeed. "I hope this is not bad news to you." No, I don't look at Iraq in black and white. Neither do I consider the spurning of al-Qaeda an American victory in certain Iraqi provinces. Remember who spawned al-Qaeda; Remember who spawned Hezbullah too. "You know nothing about Arabian tribes... Tribal leaders can't stop insurgents from doing anything if those don't want to. Money wouldn't stop insurgents if they didn't want to stop. Instead of creating all these funny theories why just you say that they stopped because they realized that they and the Americans are facing a common threat at this stage?! which is clearly what the case is." Bull Fucking Shit. We have been peeling at layers of the onion here. You can take out the big cleaver and chop like that, but the layers remain. There isn't an American half, and a Terrorist half. You're too smart to be this simplistic. "Al Qaida started attacking the insurgents and the tribes not the opposite." There was no significant "al Qaida" in Iraq until American Shock and Awe. "It was because they didn't submit to the Islamic state that al-qaida had declared." No, it was because the USA knocked a sectarian county to bits, and can't put it back together. "They caused many casualties amongst them, and this whole issue is about revenge; which is a valued tradition to those tribes." And now they will fight it out, Americans or no Americans. "If it wasn't for the Qaida and the former regime members, where would be a real problem existing?!" Yes. When Bush shattered Iraq, the Sunni elite was inevitably going to be assailed by the Shi'a deprived, no matter what the labels. Good discussion, Hani. Shukran wa Salaam.
This is what you say, and what shows how really confused is your understanding of the situation. The tribes may count over two million people. This is a people not insurgents. Insurgents are only those who were part of the Ba"th party. The Ba"th party is a party that was formed in the 1940's on the model of the Nazi party. The Ba"thist ideology is called "National Socialism," which is the English for Nazism. This totalitarian organization had both political branches and military ones. In Syria, for example, there are Ba'thist organizations for kids "Ba"thist Youth" (cf. Hitler's Youth). There are also other bodies for teenagers and for college students. Ba"thists have ranks and they all have military training. Ba"th party is a huge structure with many divisions and is not some angry tribesmen as you ridiculously think. There is no ethnic cleansing in Anbar because there are no different ethnicities there. They didn't cleanse themselves if that what you're suggesting. The sectarian problem in Iraq is mainly because of al-qaida, and now that al-qaida is fading, there should be no more escalation.
Hypewaders, Thank you. It is good talking with you too. Now I don't understand how Aoun ushered in the government? Do you mean in the downtown camp? Or with the persistent calling for overthrowing the government? He refused to participate in the government in the first place, while the other Syrianized factions did. "We are not in Middle Ages anymore, if everyone said about his country what you say about your country then there wouldn't be anything left to talk about." I was referring to your point that no one can understand Lebanon from the outside. If so, then we shouldn't be able to talk about any place if we don't live there first. Then describe the Big Picture, and we'll compare notes. Fragile independence, international tribunal for Bashaar Assad, Iranian nuclear ambition, assassinations (which Aoun vindicates the Syrian regime of them, suddenly now he became to trust the Assads and he accuses the Israelis and Americans with the assassinations). In 2007 Nsarallah was alone, only Michel Aoun was there for him. He truly saved his ass and prevented the others from getting rid of his mini-state. You love Aoun for his past; I am looking at his present. These are very different. It's not just me that is saying this. Haven't you heard the Americans? David Welsh and Feltman the ambassador in Beirut? The Europeans? No one is with him anymore because he's changed; and the Syrians and Hizbullah are with him because he's changed. You are suggesting that Americans should try the moderate Islamists? Well, they did; in Iraq, and it worked pretty well. The real problem in Iraq was because of the Ba"thists not the Islamists, the mistake was in totally alienating the Ba"thists. It really had very little to do with sectarianism. It was, and still is, a political issue. Salaam and shukran to you too, Tahiyyaaty,
False. Here is a primer on the militas in Iraq. Do you mean US escalation? Because there definately won't be any more of those. If you mean escalation of sectarian violence, you are completely wrong.
Big false to you. You have totally missed up this time. Your link talks about 3 armed groups other than al-qaida, two of those are just local branches of al-qaida and the third is the Ba"thists. Read the article again. "Insurgents" doesn't include Jihadists, those are the "terrorists." Also, this link doesn't say the tribes are insurgents, does it? The tribes compose most of the Anbar population. The tribal leaders in general may have some ties with the insurgents, which is natural, but they don't control them. Violence in Iraq is going down, you have to accept this and live with it. I am sure there will be other opportunities to take shots at Republicans, other than a ruined Iraq.
Violence in Iraq does not depend on Al Quida alone, or just the former Baathists. It's Shia against Sunni, with many sub-groups, all against the US. The tribes are not all insurgents, but the insurgents are a sub-set of the tribes. Shia militias: The Mehdi Army The Badr Brigade I wish you were right, but you are not. Iraq is a total failure and Republicans are to blame. They already lost the congress, and they will lose the Presidency in 2008. Do you have anything to say that isn't a Republican talking point? Anything that has any correlation to reality? Probably not.
Shia militias are controllable. Yea I am afriad you're right. I wish those evangelicals will pull something off. We always hear about their tricks.
They were controlled; but al-qaida dragged them into the fray. This is a minor problem. Once Sunnis are calmed and Iran is striked, it should be easy to get rid of Shia militias.
And Iraqis were supposed to greet us as liberators, but that fantasy didn't last long. But go ahead, don't let me burst your bubble, striking Iran will solve everything. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I don't even have to say anything, your statement is self-refuting.
Wow, interesting approach. And what do you think will happen after having a nuclear grand ayatollah crowned over the Middle East and the Caspian?
