The Sons of Iraq - US military's ragtag nemesis to terrorism
Middle East Features
Apr 23, 2008, 15:16 GMT
If you liked this story please support M&C and Buzz the site on Yahoo.
Latest Headlines in Middle East
- 1. Three injured in new Arab-Jewish rioting in Acre (Roundup)
- 2. Iran opposition prepares to challenge Ahmadinejad in elections
- 3. Hamas: Six months to implement Egypt's reconciliation plan (Roundup)
- 4. Iraqi group urges end of campaign against Christians in Mosul
- 5. Fatah welcomes Hamas assent of Egypt's reconciliation plan
Talkback
Add your comment (no registration required)
From the story:
'The Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has openly opposed the SOIs, which are mostly Sunni, except in mixed sect communities. About 20 per cent are expected to eventually join the Iraq police or Iraq army, and the government fears the remainder may become a new militia with which to contend.
The United States military says it is doing at least two things to help alleviate the worry. It closely vets new SOI recruits, and troops daily visit their checkpoints unannounced to check adherence to the rules.'
--------------
No Shia want to give up government jobs to let the ex-Baathist Sunni replace them. They're not trusted; and the Iraqi Government including the Ministries is all bloated patronage.
If we stopped paying them, they'd become insurgents again - just as the old Iraqi Army did when Bremer dismissed them, and sent them home with their uniforms and weapons. Petraeus' hope is that since we helped them drive out al Qaeda, for the most part, that they'll return the favor and not bite the hand who's been feeding them.
A significant amount of U.S. taxpayer money sent to Iraq is simply wasted in reconstruction projects that don't finish, or overpaid contractors. Paying the CLC's has been equivalent to paying off your neighborhood gang.
Your missing the point. You can keep talking body counts, but they are minor. WW2, 50+ M dead. Their is no incentive to make peace. We wasted a lot of cash in Germany and Japan and it was deliberate, the tremors of that one still ripple, Kosovo, Ohh suprise, WW1 started in the Bulkans, and its still a hot bed. People don't want to get killed (less than 1% do), give them somewhere to run to and in time they will get there. Your problem is the same as many in the US, you pick a fight and then when blood floes u up and run.
The locals are the only ones who can solve it.
RE: 'We wasted a lot of cash in Germany and Japan and it was deliberate, ... '
-------
Germany and Japan were both industrialized countries before WW II. In Germany we went after ball bearing plants and others producing armaments. Both of those countries built tanks and aircraft.
The Marshall plan helped Europe to rebuild, because we properly concluded that the problem was Germany's leadership, rather than their population. There were no separate religious factions battling it out for 1300 years.
As to Japan:
www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/4142.htm
'After the war, Japan was placed under international control of the Allies through the Supreme Commander, Gen. Douglas MacArthur. U.S. objectives were to ensure that Japan would become a peaceful nation and to establish democratic self-government supported by the freely expressed will of the people. Political, economic, and social reforms were introduced, such as a freely elected Japanese Diet (legislature) and universal adult suffrage. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty in March 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.'
Iraq is a different story. They had some industry, largely related to oil:
www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Iraq-INDUSTRY.html
... but not on Germany's scale; and an educated class; but the Baathists had the power, and Saddam ran them. He held down the Shia, and when Bush Sr. asked the Shia to overthrow Saddam in 1991, and then the U.S. pulled out, Saddam decided that the best way to insure his power was to destroy the Shia.
Iraq's infrastructure decayed under Saddam, and now there's a massive rebuilding job in store, and millions of Sunni refugees whose homes were either destroyed or taken over by the Shia.
Dr. Rice is trying to at least get the Sunni countries to absolve Iraq of existing debt, and not succeeding - Iraq going forward will be predominately Shia, and the potential influence of Iran is a major roadblock. If one could imagine the violence ending (and I cannot), the economic costs remain massive. This was supposed to be offset by Iraq's oil revenues, which are a major point of dissension between Sunni, Shia and Kurd.
Leave it to the Neocons to be STUPID enough to believe that it would all somehow work out.
The only reason for going to Iraq was Saddam and his threat to his neighbors.
Why should we be concerned about Raghead paradise???? keep them contained, partition the nation if necessary, supply the factions who either need us and/or will cooperate and then the US leave the conflict and/or the country.
Bush Sr. was convinced to keep Saddam in power in part BECAUSE the neighboring states wanted the Baathists to retain control as a buffer against Iranian (Shiite) influence.
Going after Saddam was (allegedly) based on a WMD threat to the U.S., rather than some greater amorphous threat to their neighbors. Saddam was soundly beaten back from Kuwait, and put on a leash.
The problem now is that Iraq will end up under Shia domination, where Iran can influence their affairs, and potentially impact oil pricing as well. We are really past the point of damage control, and our remaining in Iraq is a matter of preserving power for al-Maliki against more radical Shia elements such as al-Sadr, and trying to insure that the Sunni get some of the oil revenue. What we've done here is enabled Iran to a far greater extent than when Saddam was in power.
Bush's policies have left us with no good options; and his promotion of Petraeus leaves him around to influence our next President. Bush may be leaving formally in 2009, but the bad taste will linger for quite a while.
Congress cried for 8 years, under Clinton, that we had to deal with Saddam, but never acted.
Saddam had a large history of employing wmd's for his own use.
Over 500 wmd's were found in Iraq, to date and two were detonated as IED's in Iraq, todate.
The next President can relieve Petreaus anytime he, or she, wants. The only reason to do so would be to stifle his opinions.
If they were on the other side of the fence, the US would be calling these mercenaries 'unlawful enemy combatants.' I guess what determines their status is who pays out the greenbacks.
Re the usual simplistic cacophany:
'Congress cried for 8 years, under Clinton, that we had to deal with Saddam, but never acted.'
(Why should he have acted? Bush left Saddam in power in 1991, and he was of more use to us IN power, keeping the Shia majority OUT of power, and keeping Iran's influence to a minimum.)
'Saddam had a large history of employing wmd's for his own use.'
(Bush knew that in 1991, because gassing the Kurds occurred in 1988. Yet, a decision was made to leave him in power by Bush Sr.)
'Over 500 wmd's were found in Iraq, to date and two were detonated as IED's in Iraq, todate.'
(Not useful as weapons, and no threat. Hey, asshole, DEFINE 'WMD' for us!)
'The next President can relieve Petreaus anytime he, or she, wants. The only reason to do so would be to stifle his opinions.'
(It's one thing for the next President to relieve Odierno who will take command in Iraq, but there's no reason to remove Petraeus from his new spot - and personally, he's been quite honest about the situation, and is popular in Congress. Rumsfeld is the guy who should be dragged before Congress for incompetence, and Bush and Cheney along with him. THAT's a trial I'll tune in for).
Latest from M&C Blogs
lanceApr 23rd, 2008 - 20:12:30
Well, duh. Sunni SOI come in and al-Qaeda moves out. Like the old days when Saddam was in power. So, the U.S. finally has realized that the Sunnis are the ones that can keep power, even if they are in the minority. They could have learned a lot from Saddam Hussein, but then the U.S. military brass have been dumb heads for decades, totally goofing up learning about and from their enemy.
Uh, yes. Of course, the U.S. installed government better fear these Sunnis because the Sunni forces can get things done without them.
Report this comment