Marriage on the Rocks

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.

WE caused the terrorism in Iraq. If we weren't there, neither would the bad guys.

I never said that. I said that it is possible that the insurgents from places like "Palestine," for example, and even elsewhere, wouldn't be so psyched to make the trip if they couldn't get a chance at killing the folks from the Great Satan.

Do you not believe that that opportunity is somewhat of an incentive? That packing up and leaving for Iraq isn't so appealing if all that you can do is kill Iraqis?

That packing up and leaving for Iraq isn't so appealing if all that you can do is kill Iraqis?

Well, they're not doing so well, if that's their goal, because they're mostly killing innocent Iraqis.

But that's beside the point..............no, actually, it makes MY point.

The fact that they are packing up and going to Iraq means that they're not plotting to kill the folks from the Great Satan in our homeland, and all the more reason we should still be there.

Whether or not we are still in Iraq has nothing to do with the presence of terrorism in the world. It was there before we invaded Iraq, and it will be there after Iraq is a democracy and we are only a supportive presence.

And it IS a leftist talking point to make any connection between the existence of terrorism and our liberation of Iraq. Al Qaida was a presence there long before March of 2003.

I think you are correct ... get them more involved. This arcticle infers that, at any given time, they know EXACTLY where the insurgents are and how to reach out and touch them. They need to get a handle on who is backing the insurgents (Iran and Syria, but for different reasons) and decide once and for all what kind of lives they want for their children and grand children.

Here are the problems for the future of Iraq:
- Iran is a Shiite country and is busy sending agents to control the future government.
- Iraq has a Shiite majority
- Syria is ruled by the Sunnis and has no interest in seeing a Shiite dominated country as its next door neighbor
- The Kurds are stuck between the Turks, the Uzbeks, the Sunnis, and the Shiites.
- Turkey, lukewarm allies that they are, would like to eliminate the northern Kurds and, under those pretenses, annex the oil rich areas that the Kurds control.
- If we leave, we leave a power vacuum because Iraq has no military hardware with which to repel its neighbors.

On a more domestic level:
- If the country is unstable, nobody but the petro-chem industry will invest. What other industry wants to invest in an area where your HR assets are targets of kidnap/assassination and your infrastructure is a target of car bombs?
- If there are no other extenal investments outside of petro-chem industries inside of Iraq, then it matters one iota whether or not we build schools, give voting rights to women, etc. ... we'll have an educated, unemployed populace on our hands ... people who want a better life but need to blame someone for their plight.

One of the key differences between their fight for independence and ours is, although we had outside help, we had some homegrown leaders that put it all on the line to help sell the need for independence and we had the mass populace involved in fighting for independence ... in other words, they felt they wanted a better life for themselves and their kids, and were willing to fight for that.

So far, it seems that we've carried the ball for them and they are just waiting on the sidelines, unwilling to fight except in rare circumstances. Its time for them to get in the game, and not just when one of their "leaders" gets targeted (like in the article), but because its the right thing to do ... for them and for the future generations of Iraqis.

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.