Posted on 08/22/2005 1:04:15 PM PDT by The_Victor
Is al Qaeda of Iraq wearing out its welcome?
The strain has been showing in recent weeks in Ramadi, the capital of al Anbar province, along the Euphrates River west of Baghdad. Seeking to incite a violent confrontation, Zarqawi's terrorists had ordered members of the city's Shia minority to get out of town. On August 13, they tried to eject them by force, and found the way barred by armed Sunni militia. The ensuing gun battle lasted for an hour before Zarqawi's fighters retreated. On August 18 a group of mostly Sunni political, tribal, and religious leaders (including the governor of al Anbar), hosted by the influential Association of Muslim Scholars, were meeting in a mosque discussing the new constitution when Zarqawi's men opened fire on them. The next day Abu Muhammad Hajeri, a Saudi leader in Zarqawi's group, was found dead with three other members of the group, killed by local tribesmen in retaliation.
Infighting like this is not unprecedented — last March seven foreign fighters were killed in Ramadi, allegedly as reprisal for the assassination of a prominent member of the Dulaimi tribe and former officer in Saddam's fedayeen militia who was working with Coalition forces in Fallujah. The Dulaimi are one of the largest tribes in Iraq, and had enjoyed a measure of autonomy under Saddam's regime. They boycotted the January 2005 elections, but have since moved towards sanctioning limited participation in the political process. The Dulaimi led the defense of the Shia families in Ramadi; such a prominent Sunni group becoming engaged in the political system cannot be good news for Zarqawi.
Zarqawi's group styles itself as an insurgency, and in the grand scheme of things they aspire to be regional or even global revolutionaries under the leadership of Osama bin Laden. However, their biggest problem in Iraq is that they have no popular base. Their main sources of support are external forces seeking to destabilize the country, such as Iran, Syria, and some private interests in Saudi Arabia. Zarqawi's domestic backers only lend him aid as a matter of expediency and opportunism; it is nice to have a supply of foreign suicide attackers around. But this commonality of interests will not last forever — indeed the worm seems to be turning — and when al Qaeda becomes more liability than asset the Sunnis may well start cashing in on the millions we are offering in reward money.
Al Qaeda has not been particularly adept at achieving its goals in Iraq. Sure, they can kill people — more often than not Iraqis — but their acts of violence have not drawn them noticeably closer to their strategic objectives. For example, we know that al Qaeda is seeking to foment ethnic civil war in Iraq. Zarqawi's group has lately been focusing attacks on the Badr Corps, the main Shia militia, trying to incite them to general war on the Sunnis. Shia leaders have wisely not allowed themselves to be baited; the political drift is in their favor, and it would be foolish to play Zarqawi's game. So insistent are the Shia on keeping the peace that Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani has issued a fatwa against using the terms "Sunni," "Shia," and "Kurd," in favor of the word "Iraqi."
Likewise the terrorists have also not been able to derail the march towards democracy. The success of the January election showed they could not cow people seeking to express their sovereign will. Death threats and assassinations have no slowed the process of drafting the new constitution. Moreover, the October constitutional referendum presents the terrorists with a conundrum. The constitution can be defeated if enough people oppose it, but al Qaeda has already said that those who participate will be considered heretics and be killed. Even opponents of the document see how foolish this position is, and one Sunni cleric in Fallujah issued a fatwa encouraging people to register to vote to preserve their option to vote "no." But the foreign terrorists are true to their word, which is what led to the attack in Ramadi on the Sunni leaders discussing the constitution.
As more Sunnis realize that their interests are diverging from those of the terrorists, we will see more such episodes, and more deadly retaliation against the terrorists. Al Qaeda will not foment ethnic conflict but rather incite the more politically savvy opposition groups to begin to roll up the terrorist networks. Watch for more statements calling for the withdrawal of all foreign elements from Iraq, whether Coalition forces or Zarqawi's multinational terrorist troop. In the long run, of course, we would be happy to leave; and if the Sunnis want to clean out the foreign terrorists who are making life increasingly difficult for them, we can exit even sooner.
— James S. Robbins is senior fellow in national-security affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council, a trustee for the Leaders for Liberty Foundation, and an NRO contributor.
I hope and pray this is the outcome.
Ah, more good news, thank you!!
FINALLY, FINALLY, someone is doing some good research and giving a perspective never seen on the MSM. This is far closer to the truth than anything we will ever see on the MSM. This next few days could be crucial in what happens over the next few months. If the Sunnis feel they have a role in this new Constitution we could see a big turnaround in the violence.
My interpretation is that they were unwilling to help us until their own leader was killed. And so now this ONE
town is on board with helping us.
But everywhere else, they aren't lifting a finger.
If in this one town, they were able to identify the Zarqawi supporters / kill them within 24 hours, then they already knew who the Zarqawi supporters were and where they could be found. The townfolk just weren't telling us and were content to stand by as Zarqawi's men attempted to kill our soldiers.
I'm sure in every town, the insurgents are known and could be pointed out to our troops but most of the Iraqi's are keeping the information to themselves.
If you re-read the article, you'll know that I am correct.
Are you infering that "ONE" town in the entire country of Iraq, are the only Iraqis helping us?
Until I receive your answer to that question, there is no need for me to continue, nor to waste my time re-reading the article.
Hint: If your answer to my question is "YES" you are most definitely incorrect and do not posses even a basic understanding of the situation.
Insert your hands on the backs of your thighs and pull your head out .. I think your in desperate need of some oxygen.
BTTT
I posed a question to you, and you respond with a crude attack on my intelligence. Standard liberal tactics.
Of course they know. There are 26M Iraqis who live amongst the insurgents. They know the language, know the culture, hear the gossip, etc. They even know how to use firearms. Tell me again why they can't purge Iraq of these insurgents if provided ample guns and ammo and even some training out of the country? We haven't even given them the opportunity. As long as Iraqis view the insurgent menace as "their problem" and not "our problem," they will sit idle.
These people aren't innocent babes. They have been through wars and war conditions. I think we'd be surprised how much they could accomplish if they had no choice but to try. We're treating them like infants or the French. These people can defend themselves if given the opportunity of doing so in a liberated Iraq, without the threat of an organized army to put them down.
You insult with the best (worst?) of them...........and after only 4 months, no less. Good thing we're not suspicious around here, and suspect that you're a troll.....
But right now, they have asked for our help to repel an enemy that's coming from the outside (not just in their neighborhoods).
And OUR FINE US MILITARY COMMANDERS IN THE FIELD have determined that we need to stay there for the time being, and begin reducing our troop levels next year.
There is no reason in the world for anyone around here to trust that YOU know more than THEY do about the situation, no matter how hard you try to make us think you know all there is to know about Iraq.
But right now, they have asked for our help to repel an enemy that's coming from the outside (not just in their neighborhoods).
Sounds just like the slackers who play Everquest II all day in their parent's basement instead of being responsible for their own wants and needs. Of course the slacker will ask mommy and daddy to provide free room and board. It's a great gig. Let someone else have the headache of being responsible for problems. FR would be mostly united in rejecting the enabling of such immature adults by FR parents, but in an identical case, they give the US as parent a pass in regards to the immature adult Iraq.
And OUR FINE US MILITARY COMMANDERS IN THE FIELD have determined that we need to stay there for the time being, and begin reducing our troop levels next year.
Our military commanders do what DC tells them to do. They aren't independent agents.
Ah yes........more great respect for the Iraqi people.
I concede, Granite. You clearly have all the answers. There's no sense in arguing with omniscience.
The Sunnis make up 20% of Iraq, perhaps less now as the terrorists continue to be rounded up/killed. When Saddam was in power the Sunni were the "favored" sect. Which is not to say ALL Sunni, but chosen tribes. Therefore, 85 to 95% of all Iraqis were repressed by the previous regime.
To all of this, add the following information into the scenario:
BAGHDAD, Aug 21 (KUNA) -- Up to 281 people have been arrested around Iraq for being implicated in terror-related attacks, said spokesman for the Iraqi government Laith Kibba on Sunday.
Speaking at a press conference, he said that among those arrested were 80 Egyptians, 64 Syrians, 41 Sudanese, 22 Saudis, 17 Jordanians, 10 Palestinians, seven Libyans, six Tunisians, as well as 12 Iranians, four Turks andone British national.
If you REALLY want to understand the entire situation, and why we can not abandon them now read this -
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/20040212_zarqawi_full.html
It's not a matter of treating the Iraqis as 'grown ups.' It's a matter of understanding the details of their unique situation, and not completely ignoring the fact that most of the problems there now are being caused by outside terrorists.
To believe that we should just leave them hanging out to dry is the result of naivte...........which is why the flaky left believes it.
(I can't come up with a reason that anyone claiming to be a conservative would come to the same conclusion).
You assume those people would be there if the US was not. I don't think you can assume that.
Nor can I. Thanks ;*)
Now what in the world did I say that would lead you to "ass-u-me" that I think that?
Clearly, you did not read the link I provided!
WE caused the terrorism in Iraq. If we weren't there, neither would the bad guys.
It's a liberal point of view all the way.....
Why do we not find these sources of external support and kill them? Are we not able to find them? Is killing them impossible?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.