| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Key U.S. Iraq strategy in danger of collapse |
| 2008-08-21 |
| BAGHDAD -- A key pillar of the U.S. strategy to pacify Iraq is in danger of collapsing because the Iraqi government is failing to absorb tens of thousands of former Sunni Muslim insurgents who'd joined U.S.-allied militia groups into the country's security forces. American officials have credited the militias, known as the Sons of Iraq or Awakening councils, with undercutting support for the group al Qaida in Iraq and bringing peace to large swaths of the country, including Anbar province and parts of Baghdad. Under the program, the United States pays each militia member a stipend of about $300 a month and promised that they'd get jobs with the Iraqi government. But the Iraqi government, which is led by Shiite Muslims, has brought only a relative handful of the more than 100,000 militia members into the security forces. Now officials are making it clear that they don't intend to include most of the rest. "We cannot stand them, and we detained many of them recently," said one senior Iraqi commander in Baghdad, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue. "Many of them were part of al Qaida despite the fact that many of them are helping us to fight al Qaida." He said the army was considering setting a Nov. 1 deadline for those militia members who hadn't been absorbed into the security forces or given civilian jobs to give up their weapons. After that, they'd be arrested, he said. Some militia members say that such a move would force them into open warfare with the government again. "If they disband us now, I will tell you that history will show we will go back to zero," said Mullah Shahab al Aafi, a former emir, or leader, of insurgents in Diyala province who's the acting commander of 24,000 Sons of Iraq there, 11,000 of whom are on the U.S. payroll. "I will not give up my weapons. I will never give them up, and I will carry my weapon again. If it is useless to talk to the government, I will be forced to carry my weapons and my pistol." The conflict over the militias underscores how little has changed in Iraq in the past year despite the drop in violence, which American politicians often attribute to the temporary increase of U.S. troops in Iraq that ended in July. American military officials here have always said that the creation of the Sunni militias was at least as important to the precipitous drop in violence as the presence of 30,000 more U.S. troops, and that incorporating them into the security forces would go a long way toward bringing about the sort of reconciliation needed for long-term stability. After initially embracing the idea of bringing the militia members into the security forces, however, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki hasn't followed through. A committee that Maliki formed to organize the militias' transition to full-fledged government security troops fell apart and was reconstituted only recently. U.S. officials acknowledge that the hiring of the Sunnis has slowed to a crawl. U.S. and Iraqi officials agree that the Maliki government never agreed to hire more than 20 percent of the militia members. A Maliki ally said it was unreasonable to expect otherwise. "All the Americans are doing is paying them just to be quiet," said Haider al Abadi, a leading member of Maliki's Dawa political party and the head of the economic and investment committee in the parliament. The Iraqi government, he said, can't "justify paying monthly salaries to people on the grounds that they are ex-insurgents." The best that most of them could expect is to be placed in vocational training for trades such as bricklaying and plumbing, along with a slew of other unemployed people. The government has allocated $150 million for such training. So far this year, the U.S. military has spent $303 million on Sons of Iraq salaries. American officials declined to be interviewed on the issue without a pledge of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the subject. But privately they expressed concern. "If they only take a portion of them it's possible they will return to their insurgent ways," one senior intelligence analyst said, acknowledging that most of the men now called the Sons of Iraq had been insurgents, for al Qaida in Iraq and other groups that considered themselves resistance fighters against Americans. He called the issue the "long-term threat." "People need to be busy, industrious, just like us," he said. Without jobs, he said, they'll "revert back to how they received money before." About 15,000 militia members have been given security jobs since the beginning of last year, according to the U.S. military. Another 2,342 have been approved for jobs with the Iraqi police after the Iraqi army opposed absorbing them. The United States has 103,000 militia members on its payroll. Abadi, the Maliki ally, was blunt in calling the militias a problem. "You've created a problem here," he said. "You can't get rid of a program by shoveling it on the Iraqi government shoulders." Colin Kahl, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a centrist policy institute in Washington, who recently visited Iraq, said the dispute over the militias could set the stage for a return of widespread bloodshed, particularly because the Maliki government seemed intent on thwarting the plan. He noted that of the militia members slated to join the security forces, only 600 have completed the required training. Of those, most are Shiites. Kahl, who spoke with senior U.S. officials during his visit to Iraq, said that the Iraqi government was providing jobs to the militia members in "humiliating ways." He said former Iraqi army officers were being absorbed as low-level beat cops, and men who saw themselves as the "slayers of al Qaida" were being asked to become plumbers and bricklayers. "The last time we humiliated thousands of these guys is back in 2003, and we got the insurgency," Kahl said. Farouk Abd al Sattar Hassan Mohammed al Obeidi, a deputy Sunni militia commander in the northern Baghdad neighborhood of Adhamiyah, wore a military uniform in an interview with McClatchy last week because he considered his men and himself to be soldiers. He voiced frustration that his men had applied repeatedly to join the Iraqi Security Forces, to no avail. "We wish we were part of the army. With deep remorse the government is sectarian," Obeidi said. He described his alliance with the U.S. forces as "the enemy of your enemy is your friend." "The Sons of Iraq achieved security. Don't they deserve to enter the army?" Obeidi will never see that happen. On Sunday, a suicide bomber on a bicycle killed him, along with five of his men and nine civilians. (McClatchy special correspondent Mohammed al Dulaimy contributed to this report.) |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #16 I've seen similar articles at Long War Journal (Bill Roggio's place). I don't see it as BS. If Maliki does not make a good-faith effort to bring the Sunnis into the fold, then everything could come undone very fast. It is going to take time combined with a whole lot of credible actions to reduce tensions between the sunni and shia communities. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2008-08-21 13:27 |
| #15 Dr. Rice just made a surprise visit to Iraq to hammer some of this out. Any reconstruction plan and integration of refugees needs to include Sunnis and any other sect. If they have a stake in its future, wages to support a family, they won't be so quick to blow up vegetable markets. All that oil revenue should be used for housing projects, building schools and hospitals, roads and other infrastructure, to benefit all. |
| Posted by: Danielle 2008-08-21 12:45 |
| #14 It's possible the article is not actually meant for Western Audiences but primarily for Sunni Arabs looking for a grudge again. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-08-21 10:19 |
| #13 they should have been cowering and beaten and terrified of not cooperating with the new order we didnt do that in Germany, or in Japan. Arguably, we didnt have to because wed beaten, terrified,etc in the course of the war, before we occupied. Not to many examples in US history, cause we didnt beat too many countries conventionally in 3 weeks. Closest comparison maybe the Phillipines after the Spanish American war. I dont know much about that, but IIUC it took some time to resolve. So call me skeptical of the "we werent tough enough" school. I think it is pretty clear to most that not keeping the Iraqi army employed, and using it to keep order, was a mistake (caveat to that is that it wouldnt have been THAT easy, as many Iraqi soldiers - esp Shiite enlistess - had simply run home and had no interest in the Iraqi army. That said, we could have kept SOME more than we did, and that would probably have helped) And most were not war criminals. And yeah, losing your job, feeling hopeless, etc does lead often to acts of violence - esp when such economic loss is also accompanied by POLITICAL changes as dramatic as Iraq saw in 2003 (Marxists are always scratching their heads cause they expect poverty to lead to revolution WITHOUT regard to the political situation, often much more important - and also cause they dont take into account changes in status, more important than income figures) As for blowing up grandmas, SOME of the insurgents in 2003 and 2004 spent most of their time attacking oil pipelines, etc - it was mainly AQ proper that specialized in the orcish stuff. That leaves now. I agree that I think the pessimism sounds a bit overwrought. As usual, there are different reports from different sources, and from different places in Iraq. My vague impression from reading MSM mainly, and other sources a bit, is that Maliki IS absorbing more sons of Iraq than some thought he would, largely under US pressure, partly out of common sense, esp in places like Anbar where there really arent any Shiia. But that in Baghdad and esp Diyala, he (and the whole Shia side) are much more reluctant. SW is right sorting out is needed here. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-08-21 10:04 |
| #12 When we see something like this in the NYT under a John Burns byline (and ONLY under a John Burns byline), then it's time to worry. Until then, we return you to your regularly scheduled programming. |
| Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2008-08-21 09:56 |
| #11 Oh, and I predict we will see a lot more articles like this from sources like this after the primary. Gotta show that Obama was right and McCain is wrong ya know and try to influence an election. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-08-21 09:46 |
| #10 While I agree that anything McClatchy is suspect, Big Jim does have a point: many of the 'Sons of Iraq' are decent enough (for that region), patriotic fellows, but they're also there for the money. If the money stops they have to live somehow, and becoming auto mechanics isn't in the cards for most of them. Since the central government is blessed with $73 billion that it can't spend, how's about having them pick up the tab for a while until one can sort out what happens to all the awakening councils? |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-08-21 09:43 |
| #9 Considering the source and the timing, I call bullshit. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-08-21 09:45 |
| #8 A McClatchy article? The odds of accuracy match Debka, the level of bias is up there with CNN and the BBC. Remember that junior reporter they sent out who insisted that the sentry on duty at the Green Zone border let him through without credentials, while openly insulting the man for stupidity? The reporter's previous assignment had been something like Community Activities at a weekly village newspaper somewhere in the wilds of California. The story came out because the idiot wrote about it, quivering with indignation, on his McClatchy blog, if I recall correctly. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-08-21 08:23 |
| #7 It depends on money, and where it is coming from. They fought for Al Qaeda for money, not spiritual convictions. They're fighting for Iraq now for $300 a month. If there is better money in crime or insurgency, I guess that's where they'll go. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-08-21 07:34 |
| #6 I've noticed maybe three articles in this general vein over the last week. They don't pass the smell test from my point of view. They seem to be trying to create a problem, rather than exposing any particular problem. Handful of salt is recommended. |
| Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2008-08-21 06:57 |
| #5 McClatchy special correspondent Mohammed al Dulaimy contributed to this report.) The cleanest word that this article invokes is OFFAL An Islamist and a Commie shared a pen and wrote a hold yer breath XMAS WISH for the Damn Devil Himself. |
| Posted by: Red Dawg 2008-08-21 03:36 |
| #4 "The last time we humiliated thousands of these guys is back in 2003, and we got the insurgency," Kahl said. Hmmm. Mr. Kahl's credibility just swooped down towards zero. Without denying the bizarre and pathological Iraqi and even Arab concept of humiliation (being party to genocide - no big deal; losing your job - time to blow up grandmothers at vegetable markets!), this is the Iraq equivalent of "root causes" for the wider GWOT. And - hate to I say I told you so - but these sorts of problems (though probably far less ominous than painted by Kahl and McLatchy, nee Knight-Ridder, whose sometime bureau chief was nice but quite dumb back in '05/'06) are the key side effect of "winning" without crushing the will of an enemy to resist. Long before any Sunnis were alienated by idiotic and vicious AQIZ behavior, they should have been cowering and beaten and terrified of not cooperating with the new order. Instead we had the surreal spectacle of Ramadi being a pitched battle between alien supergods (the USMC) and teenagers (the local AQIZ and "insurgents"). Though as ever I stand ready to be completely set straight by those with better info or analysis, I consider the Ramadi stand-off all by itself to be an inexcusable and clear example of a flawed strategy in Iraq that is working OK due to circumstances. A situation that would have been resolved in a week or less in previous eras - much to the benefit of all concerned save the vaporized enemy - stretched on for years and gave the quite dim would-be jihadi recruiting pool the ridiculous idea that they could stand up to US military power for even an afternoon. If Gen. Casey became COS after presiding over a debacle, I fear there won't be many/any brave souls to make bold remarks about the absence of imperial garments when the upbeat assessments of the surge are done in the DOD and at the service schools. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2008-08-21 01:59 |
| #3 If the duly elected government of Iraq wants to piss away the victory that has been won against the terrorists and wants us to leave by 2011, then we will leave. And the average Iraqi will get to live with the resulting resurgence of terror inside the country. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2008-08-21 01:45 |
| #2 This calls for a grain of salt the size of a Fairbanks-Morse marine diesel. Even if you overlook the fact that it's written on an antiwar newspaper chain's website by a guy named "Mohammed", you need to check out the board of directors at that so-called "centrist policy institute" named as a source...it's completely lousy with Clintonoids and other assorted Neville Chamberlain wannabes. |
| Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2008-08-21 01:45 |
| #1 Looks like Maliki is intent on a Shiite dominated army. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2008-08-21 01:41 |