Rift Seen in Iraqi Insurgency

BasketCase

Username sez it all
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
13,024
Location
Closer than you'd like
Rift seen in Iraq insurgency -- some groups reject al Qaeda

BUHRUZ, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. forces have begun arming nationalist guerrillas and former Saddam Hussein loyalists -- and coordinating tactics -- in a marriage of convenience against al Qaeda radicals in one of Iraq's most violent provinces, senior U.S. commanders tell CNN.

This new alliance, a result of the deepening divisions among Iraqi insurgent factions, was on display earlier this week at a highway intersection in the town of Tahrir. There, a group of some 15 insurgents publicly chanted: "Death to al Qaeda."

"The al Qaeda organization has dominated and humiliated Sunnis, Shiites and jihadis. It has forced people from their homes. They can't get enough blood. They killed many honest scholars, preachers and loyal mujahedeen," one of the group's spokesmen read from a written manifesto.

It's a sharp turnaround from just two months ago when the same insurgent forces were focused on fighting U.S. troops and driving them out of Diyala province, about 40 miles north of Baghdad.

U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Multi-National Division North, believes U.S. counterinsurgency efforts in Vietnam and Latin America offer precedents for the strategy he is now pushing in this region of Iraq. (Watch how insurgents are turning against al Qaeda )

"We've seen this in previous counterinsurgency operations, using local nationals, arming them and forming them into scouts," he told CNN. "That's the primary role we want to use them in. They know the territory. They know the enemy."

The changing strategy isn't just confined to Diyala, according to U.S. officials. Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, told CNN Thursday that tribal forces in Anbar, the restive Sunni province west of the Iraqi capital, have "decided to oppose al Qaeda and fight with the coalition forces against them."

"What's taken place in Anbar is almost breathtaking," he said. "In the last several months, tribes that turned a blind eye to what al Qaeda was doing in that province are now opposing al Qaeda very vigorously. And the level of violence in Anbar has plummeted, although there clearly is still work to be done." (Full story)

At the highway intersection in Tahrir, the insurgents said they had named their anti-al Qaeda alliance the United Jihad Council. They said the newly formed council was an umbrella organization of smaller insurgent units, including the 1920s Brigades, the Mujahedeen Army, Islamic Army and the Salaheddin Brigades.

CNN videotaped gunmen posting lookouts on rooftops throughout Tahrir and patting down civilians -- checking for potential al Qaeda infiltrators -- as they made their way to prayers at local mosques.

Locals say al Qaeda amputated fingers for smoking
Nationalist insurgents say al Qaeda excesses are behind their falling-out. Several sources said al Qaeda members burned a 7-year-old child alive and murdered women and other children in the towns and villages around the provincial capital of Baquba. They did not give names or dates to back up their claims.

"They [al Qaeda] ruled with tyranny. They really harmed our town, so we had to stop them, and they left, no return," said one young gunman, who claimed membership in the nationalist 1920s Brigades.

Other civilian and insurgent sources in the towns of Tahrir and neighboring Buhruz said al Qaeda had imposed strict regulations, including a ban on smoking -- punishable by the amputation of a finger or hand -- and a curfew on citizens walking in the streets after 4 p.m.

Some citizens said al Qaeda had even banned Friday prayers.

Based on anecdotal evidence, offered by civilians in Buhruz, al Qaeda was financing its military operations by forcing citizens to pay a "war tax," as well as by kidnapping for ransom, selling smuggled fuel on the black market, and even using forced labor to harvest oranges and dates from sprawling plantations throughout the region.

In Buhruz, Capt. Ben Richards is one of the U.S. field commanders cementing the U.S. military alliance with its former foes from the nationalist insurgent factions. He said the new strategy was highly pragmatic. (Watch a marriage of convenience )

"If we go in with the mindset that every one of these persons has tried to kill an American, I don't think that's true, though in many cases it may be. But if you think that, then you're setting yourself up for a mindset that is not productive for us or for the Iraqi people," Richards, commander of a troop of Stryker combat vehicles, told CNN.

Richards described assistance from the former insurgent factions and what he calls other "concerned local nationals" as "militarily crucial."

His key ally in the region is a man known as Abu Ali, who says he has never belonged to an insurgent force but was an officer in one of Saddam Hussein's feared military intelligence units.

To date, Abu Ali says he has received 39 weapons and about 1,000 rounds of ammunition from the U.S. military. The insurgent factions he represents, however, are known to have significant arsenals of their own weapons, including light machine guns, assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades.

Publicly, Abu Ali is grateful for the assistance he and his followers have received from the U.S. military. He predicts he can help clear the entire province of al Qaeda militants within six months if the U.S. Army provides more ammunition and supports insurgent operations with air cover and help from tanks and armored personnel carriers.

But while the marriage of convenience may be successful for now, Abu Ali and his followers seem to have no intention of making a lasting commitment to the Americans.

"After we are done with al Qaeda," Abu Ali says, "we will ask the Americans to withdraw from Iraq. ... If they do not withdraw, there will be violations and the American army will be harmed."

He adds, "Especially after the help the U.S. Army has provided us, we would like them to go home as our friend, not enemy."

With the alliance only beginning to bear its first successes, few U.S. commanders seem to be looking toward the end of the affair. But there is a realization that it is a balancing act -- to prevent al Qaeda infiltration and to maintain the collaboration of nationalist insurgents.

"It's a risk worth taking," Mixon said.

The fall of the Berlin Wall? Didn't see it coming. Iraq War #2? I blinked. The capture of Saddam? Was caught napping.

I never expected this one to happen either.

Pretty much anything can be made of it. More proof of American depravity in allying with the wrong people? The downfall of the insurgency? Proof that Al-Qaeda WAS in Iraq after all....? Who knows. Too early to draw conclusions, in my opinion......

......but I find the possibilities quite intriguing. :)
 
Rift seen in Iraq insurgency -- some groups reject al Qaeda



The fall of the Berlin Wall? Didn't see it coming. Iraq War #2? I blinked. The capture of Saddam? Was caught napping.

I never expected this one to happen either.

Pretty much anything can be made of it. More proof of American depravity in allying with the wrong people? The downfall of the insurgency? Proof that Al-Qaeda WAS in Iraq after all....? Who knows. Too early to draw conclusions, in my opinion......

......but I find the possibilities quite intriguing. :)

Bright day
This is news?

It can be very good. The only problem are local sheiks, who are now eing accomodated. Down the road it could lead to pluralistic democracy, real civil war or something in between.
 
Yes, this was the plan all the time. The mountains of Afghanistan were too rough to kill terrorists en masse - plus it's wedged in a not-so-nice neighborhood where nasties can sneak around mountain passes and cross the borders very easily. So, we figured we'd sort of 'transport' the battlefield over to Iraq.

Al Qaeda took the bait. Even Bin Laden was saying, Iraq is the main target, place of interest, etc. Fools - they fell right into our trap. Now we can get the Iraqis to kill Al Qaeda for us, while we sit back and provide 'technical assistance', and make money (some of us anyway) investing in oil service contractors. Meanwhile, our military is gaining all kinds of relevant experience, should we ever go into Syria, Lebanon (to assist), Iran, etc.

And you guys had been doubting Uncle Sam all this time. You even elected a bunch of Democrats. tsk tsk But, everything will still be fine with the long-term strategy.
 
After the more annoying fish (al Qaeda) is eaten , the other Fishes will fight against each other.
 
It looks very much like an American propaganda operation. Do Al-Quaeda ban Friday prayers?
No-one seems to have any evidence except stories. I'm sure that some people are joining the Americans, but I wonder how much of what they say is true about Al-Quaeda, and whether they really mean Al-Quaeda or simply any rival insurgent group. It sounds very staged to me.
 
It looks very much like an American propaganda operation. Do Al-Quaeda ban Friday prayers?
No-one seems to have any evidence except stories. I'm sure that some people are joining the Americans, but I wonder how much of what they say is true about Al-Quaeda, and whether they really mean Al-Quaeda or simply any rival insurgent group. It sounds very staged to me.

No it is very real.

You need to keep in mind that most sunni Iraqi insurgents had good acces to services, goods and education; they never had to think much of themselves in religious terms. Whereas many shia Iraqis are "more shia" than Khomeini. For sunni Iraqi and some shia, the fundamentalist viewpoint of Al-Qaeda is extremely unappealing.
 
Yar helo thar double agents...
 
I certainly don't mind the al-Q. getting it. And I actively prefer them getting it from Sunnis in general. The al-Q. in Iraq has been targetting civilians as being too worldly. They are effectively making war on the Iraqis in general.

So, it's not that surprising if they have finally outstayed their welcome.

Otoh, if they have become such a problem other Sunni fighters feel compelled to take them on, it means the problem has by now grown to a certain magnitude. Not sure that's a good sign after all...
 
HELL (its about time)
Well it normally take a few days before such information breaks into the mainsteam media. Not really a surprise given the downward spriel. The Baathest were in fact ironicly the first to ally with alQeda whom provided a ready access of money. These infighting have been seen before last year though this is the first time the US is "offically" backing nationalist against the Jihardies

Its IRONIC that were now BACKING the BAATHEST again (the Irony)
Anyway Jihardies being killed is good news

Fighting in a western Baghdad district between two insurgent groups continued for the 2nd day, eye witnesses told ITM.
The clashes erupted yesterday around noon between two groups of insurgents that are competing for control in the Amiriya district, one of Baghdad's most violent and lawless districts.

The two groups, teams actually, were later identified; on one side there's al-Qaeda and the Islamic state in Iraq and on the other there's the Islamic army and 'Jaish al-Mujahideen' (The brigades of the 1920 revolution in another account), the latter are know to be largely military and intelligence officers of the former regime as well as members of the Baath Party.

"I saw seven or eight bodies of militants who were killed in the clashes lying on the ground" one eyewitness said this morning. This was before the fighting resumed after a short pause.

Sot al-Iraq reports that machineguns, RPG's and mortars were used in the clashes and that masked men, believed to be reinforcements for al-Qaeda began pouring into the district.

Islamic extremists like al-Qaeda often clash with the pan-nationalist, less Islamic elements of insurgent groups which are largely made up former military officers and Baathists, so this is not the first time that such clashes occur in Amiriyah or Adhamiyah where both groups have strong presence but this time the clashes are fiercer and lasted longer than any previous incident.
 
If this isn't day one stuff, I don't know what is. There are many factions in Iraq, the U.S. military since 2003 being one of them. Over time alliances change and the propoganda of "progress" comes out.

Still getting U.S. soldiers killed at a record rate for this misadventure.
 
Rift seen in rift.
A tribal coalition formed to oppose the extremist group al-Qaeda in Iraq, a development that U.S. officials say has reduced violence in Iraq's troubled Anbar province, is beginning to splinter, according to an Anbar tribal leader and a U.S. military official familiar with tribal politics.

In an interview in his Baghdad office, Ali Hatem Ali Suleiman, 35, a leader of the Dulaim confederation, the largest tribal organization in Anbar, said that the Anbar Salvation Council would be dissolved because of growing internal dissatisfaction over its cooperation with U.S. soldiers and the behavior of the council's most prominent member, Abdul Sattar Abu Risha. Suleiman called Abu Risha a "traitor" who "sells his beliefs, his religion and his people for money."

Abu Risha, who enjoys the support of U.S. military commanders, denied the allegations and said the council is not at risk of breaking apart. "There is no such thing going on," he said in a telephone interview from Jordan.
 
I am as much a supporter (in principle) of our foreign policy as the most hawkish of Americans, but I am seriously skeptical about the prospects for future success. I have no doubt that things are improving in Iraq, but aiding these people has to come with some sort of hesitancy. The enemy of our enemy is NOT our friend. We can, apparently, all agree that Al-Qaeda is a the enemy of not only the United States, but Iraq. They are making life difficult for everyone. When Al-Qaeda is gone, these people are going to resume other pursuits. Are they going to fight us? Are they going to fight each other? These questions must be asked and answered before we proceed any further. Token support for these groups is a good investment, but serious funding, supplying, and arming should be reconsidered, if it is planned.
 
Rift seen in Iraq insurgency -- some groups reject al Qaeda
Oh thank heavens, phew! To think we all doubted Bush, the mans a genius! Alrighty then, Bush won, lets bring the troops home now.
 
Arming insurgents isn't a good idea. How about asking them to join the police or army instead? They may be fighting our enemies now but they will be the new enemy after Al-Queda is defeated. Of course then maybe we can arm Al-Queda to fight them.

Sounds like a typical short sighted American foreign policy move. I wonder if anyone asked the Iraqi government what it thinks of this plan?
 
Back
Top Bottom